Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'abortion'.
Found 3 results
There are currently zero restrictions on when an abortion can take place in Canada, including up to the expected birth date. Most countries/states set the limit as the first trimester (first three months), or at the very least, the week beyond which the fetus could survive outside the womb (viability). In Canada a woman can have a fetus destroyed one day before the expected date of birth, a viable baby that would survive outside of the mother. https://nationalpost.com/news/as-abortion-debate-becomes-increasingly-polarized-poll-shows-the-views-of-many-canadians-are-more-complicated
Over the past few years I have learned that some pregnancies were accidental and not entirely preventable. But I have also learned that a lot of those accidents ended in full term pregnancy and birth with the intent of only the woman. For example : We have a man and a woman, they agree to have sex with each other for the sake of pleasure, thus a strong birth control is used. However due to potential statistical birth control failure it turns out two months later she finds out that she is pregnant. Now legally speaking she has a few options, she can abort the pregnancy or allow a full term pregnancy with post birth options. However, in this case the man has no options, in fact the woman forces actions upon him, infringing on his freedoms as a would be father or none father. Given that the man and woman do not stay together as a family, If the would be “mother “decides to raise the child, the would be “father” would have to pay child support. If the “mother” decides to get an abortion the “father” has no rights to deny the abortion. (Now I am not going to say the “father” should have a right to force the “mother” to give birth to a child she does not wish to have, although some arguments could be made for such cases. For instance, if she does not wish to have the baby and wishes to abort, then she would be liable for compensation to the “father” as he has lost the ability to have that child, “denial of child” support. So basically if the woman wants to abort she would have to pay the man “denial of child support for the next 18 years, a reverse of the situation. ( again this is too extreme and would never happen)) Lets look at a different option, say the woman wishes to have the baby, however the man does not wish to have the baby (he does not wish to become a father). Could a system be in place where when accidental pregnancy happens and the woman wishes to have a child, the man can optionally pay the abortion equivalency financial amount or give a certain amount of time so that he is released of all liabilities to the baby after birth as a father/caretaker? In other words, the would be father pays a certain amount equivalent to an abortion, to ensure that he is not legally the father and he has no duty to pay child care. This gives semi rights to both parties involved vs a system were all decisions are made by the woman. Current system: Sex Abortion? Accepting pregnancy? agree? Result? Woman> yes/no yes/no they both agree equal, mother/none, success Man > yes/no yes/no they both agree equal, father/none, success Woman> no yes NO Mother, gets child support +18 Man > yes no NO Forced fatherhood, forced child support +18 Woman> yes no NO She has abortion, no further action Man > no yes NO He has no father rights, no ability for further action Amendment recommendation: Sex Abortion? Accepting pregnancy? agree? Result? Woman> no yes NO Mother gives birth to the baby, accepts abortion financial aid equivalency Man > yes no NO He has no fatherly rights to the baby, pays financial abortion aid equivalency Thoughts?
I’ll admit, for most of my adult life I’d have considered myself “agnostic” concerning the abortion “third rail”, tending to fall on the side that it is none of my business and something “other people do”……. But now with this criminal case involving Dr Kermit Gosnell’s abortion clinic in Philadelphia, I’m truly starting to reconsider my “stance” on moral grounds. Now I’m fully aware that there are many instances surrounding legal abortion that more then morally absolve such practices (In my opinion) like rape or health concerns for the mother………..But this case or other late term abortions for that mater have really forced me to reconsider my stance on the issue: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/why-dr-kermit-gosnells-trial-should-be-a-front-page-story/274944/ I just can’t square this circle and help to feel this practices is approaching Josef Mengele type levels………utterly disgusting: So my question, if “bad abortion” is considered anything past 24 weeks, is a child aborted at 23 weeks ok? Where is the moral “cut-off”? And for the record, I’m not a religious person but I am parent.