White Doors Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 The reality (as far as I know) is that this is how it works now, Mr Canada was asked to provide some sort of proof that this wasn't the case, and so far has failed to produce any. A woman is legally entitled to abort up to the moment of delivery right now. The majority are probably done in this instance, but I would support legislation formalizing this practise. I am not interested in the ramblings of Mr. Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 Depending on what sources you use, and what definitions are applied, about 90% are done by 12 weeks and 97 by 20 weeks. About a third of one percent occurs after 20 weeks, and you can pretty much count on those ones being as a result of maternal health crisis, or particularly grim amniocentesis. When it comes right down to it, those are the ones I'd least like to interfere with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 Depending on what sources you use, and what definitions are applied, about 90% are done by 12 weeks and 97 by 20 weeks. About a third of one percent occurs after 20 weeks, and you can pretty much count on those ones being as a result of maternal health crisis, or particularly grim amniocentesis. When it comes right down to it, those are the ones I'd least like to interfere with. even one done because the woman 'changed her mind' after 20 weeks is too many. They have brain activity at this point and I think the law should afford them some of the rights that the born have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 Fair enough.... but I have serious doubts about the achievability of 20- week+ abortion in Canada on those grounds. And if it should be prevented, does that mean criminalized? And how much are you prepared to risk by fixing something that is demonstrably not broken? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 Fair enough.... but I have serious doubts about the achievability of 20- week+ abortion in Canada on those grounds. And if it should be prevented, does that mean criminalized? And how much are you prepared to risk by fixing something that is demonstrably not broken? Achieveability? what are you talking about? outlawing abortion after brain activity in the fetus aside from a medical emergency is a moderate position. Being legally able to do so up to the moment of delivery in this country right now is most certainly 'broken'. No other western country behaves this way, why do we insist on behaving this way. No rights are absolute and this is an achievable, humane way to achieve balance to this equation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 The reality (as far as I know) is that this is how it works now, Mr Canada was asked to provide some sort of proof... Why is anybody obliged to provide proof when the very document Mr Canada relies on is based only on faith. In fact, all evidence supplied by science and history (and the bible itself) contradicts any claims the Bible (or its interpretors) make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 I have to rephrase? Okay. Find someone who is 20 weeks pregnant with no problems associated with the pregnancy and send them out to see if they can arrange such an abortion in Canada. I'd bet a great deal that they can't manage to make the arrangements, regardless of the legal situation. It isn't 'banned', or 'criminal' or 'restricted by law', but it is extraordinarily difficult- approaching impossible- to arrange, and no one is making waves to make it easier. So I'm saying that effectively, we already have such a 'ban', not formalized in law, but very much a fact of life- ergo, it ain't broke. So, I'm not offering up hostility. I'm just asking what _exactly_ you are proposing in addition. Criminality? Hoops for doctors and seriously ill mothers to jump through when the situation is grave? What form should a national ban take? Would we throw mother who seek it into jail? Doctors, and anyone else who might aid them? And if you are proposing criminality/ person status for the fetus/ or just funding restrictions or such... have you considered the potential side-effects of those regulations. Depending on what exactly you want, it could be anything from jailing mothers who smoke to bankrupting health districts-- or even no side effect at all, though that's highly unlikely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 Achieveability? what are you talking about?outlawing abortion after brain activity in the fetus aside from a medical emergency is a moderate position. Being legally able to do so up to the moment of delivery in this country right now is most certainly 'broken'. No other western country behaves this way, why do we insist on behaving this way. No rights are absolute and this is an achievable, humane way to achieve balance to this equation. 10 states do late term abortions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 According to this poll 31 to 1 support abortions. that is huge..... Good thing it wasn't a simple yes no question, because that one vote would look real lonely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 I have to rephrase? Okay. Find someone who is 20 weeks pregnant with no problems associated with the pregnancy and send them out to see if they can arrange such an abortion in Canada. I'd bet a great deal that they can't manage to make the arrangements, regardless of the legal situation. It isn't 'banned', or 'criminal' or 'restricted by law', but it is extraordinarily difficult- approaching impossible- to arrange, and no one is making waves to make it easier. So I'm saying that effectively, we already have such a 'ban', not formalized in law, but very much a fact of life- ergo, it ain't broke. So, I'm not offering up hostility. I'm just asking what _exactly_ you are proposing in addition. Criminality? Hoops for doctors and seriously ill mothers to jump through when the situation is grave? What form should a national ban take? Would we throw mother who seek it into jail? Doctors, and anyone else who might aid them? And if you are proposing criminality/ person status for the fetus/ or just funding restrictions or such... have you considered the potential side-effects of those regulations. Depending on what exactly you want, it could be anything from jailing mothers who smoke to bankrupting health districts-- or even no side effect at all, though that's highly unlikely. I am advocating a restriction on abortion after a certain time period of development of said fetus. After that agreed to time period no abortion would be performed unless a medical emergency necessitated one. As to all of your scenarios, it seems to work well for all the countries of Western Europe. If there were no murders in our society, I would still support a law against murder - ergo your argument about it 'aint' broke' is both irrelevant and probably, plain wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 According to this poll31 to 1 support abortions. that is huge..... Good thing it wasn't a simple yes no question, because that one vote would look real lonely. Thanks for putting in a nut-shell what is wrong with the abortion debate in this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 Thanks for putting in a nut-shell what is wrong with the abortion debate in this country. The only thing wrong with the abortion debate in this country is that it still exists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 I am advocating a restriction on abortion after a certain time period of development of said fetus. After that agreed to time period no abortion would be performed unless a medical emergency necessitated one.As to all of your scenarios, it seems to work well for all the countries of Western Europe. If there were no murders in our society, I would still support a law against murder - ergo your argument about it 'aint' broke' is both irrelevant and probably, plain wrong. Most Eastern European countries limit abortion at 18-24 weeks unless health of mother or baby are endangered. That is the way it is in Canada law or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 Most Eastern European countries limit abortion at 18-24 weeks unless health of mother or baby are endangered. That is the way it is in Canada law or not. Eastern and Western Europe. Then I am sure you will be counted as one that would support this legislation then. Thank you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 The only thing wrong with the abortion debate in this country is that it still exists. aww.. so cute and insightful! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 "As to all of your scenarios, it seems to work well for all the countries of Western Europe." The countries of Western Europe didn't arrive at their situations by way of having existing law struck down by their Supreme Courts, so we are talking completely different legal/regulatory environments. Any new law would have to find its way through the chinks of that ruling, and it is a great curiousity of mine how folks would manage that. The only way I can see is to create far broader law than a simple 'though shalt not'-- leaning into the balance of conflicting rights, and as I mentioned, legal personhood for a fetus-- which would call many nearly unrelated human rights situations into question, and open more cans of worms than even the pessimist in me can imagine. In the end, it means to me that the question is basically moot. The sort of law that Mr. Canada dances around couldn't be enacted without consititutional revisions (and likely a lot of serious violence, too)... but the more moderate suggestions like yours are similarly difficult, could not be enacted in any straightforward manner, and would almost without doubt lead to unintended consequences that legislators and citizens alike would want no part of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 If some rights were made for a fetus at an agree-upon gestation time-line then you have rights that may contradict each other and hence, nullify the very reason why the abortion law was struck down in the first place.... ie: As the law does not recognize a 'person' until it takes it first breath only the rights of the woman were taken into account for there was no legislation in place that the supreme court could look at for competing rights. Simple legislation could change that situation rather quickly. Look, if your argument is that don't fix it because it is 'too hard' then you can just move on. It is not too hard and virtually every other country in the world provides various examples of how it could be done. I think you are just trolling as you simply do not want any restrictions placed on women in any way in regards to abortion. You are placing your ideaology higher than life and that is your right, but you are wasting your time arguing with me. I do not subscribe to extemist views on this subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 My arguement is don;t fix becuase it is Women have right to their own body. You don't have a right to tell them what you do even if you believe you should. Maybe we should have a vote but only let Women in Canada vote on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 If some rights were made for a fetus at an agree-upon gestation time-line then you have rights that may contradict each other and hence, nullify the very reason why the abortion law was struck down in the first place.... ie: As the law does not recognize a 'person' until it takes it first breath only the rights of the woman were taken into account for there was no legislation in place that the supreme court could look at for competing rights.Simple legislation could change that situation rather quickly. Look, if your argument is that don't fix it because it is 'too hard' then you can just move on. It is not too hard and virtually every other country in the world provides various examples of how it could be done. I think you are just trolling as you simply do not want any restrictions placed on women in any way in regards to abortion. You are placing your ideaology higher than life and that is your right, but you are wasting your time arguing with me. I do not subscribe to extemist views on this subject. I'm extremely uncomfortable about speaking in absolutes about something that is ultimately going to be between a woman and her doctor. What if evidence of severe congenital defects appear during the 3rd trimester? Are you going to pepper this law so full of exceptions that, ultimately, it becomes ineffective? If you're going to do that, then what's the point of the law? If this law is in fact going to tie doctors and womens hands over medical issues, then it's a goddamned bad law. So what is it exactly that you're proposing here? Look, doctors act upon a fairly rigorous set of ethics, most of which are not legal precepts at all. Other than perhaps to make yourself feel better about late-term abortions, is there any evidence you can provide that this sort of thing actually goes on? How many doctors out there perform late term abortions unless there's some sound medical reasons? I'd wager the number approaches zero, but since there seem to be a few people here who think that there are doctors who are aborting at the eight month mark or something like that, there must be some justification for this belief, and thus for the demand for such a law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 My arguement is don;t fix becuase it is Women have right to their own body. You don't have a right to tell them what you do even if you believe you should. Maybe we should have a vote but only let Women in Canada vote on it. The idea that civil liberties should be decided by a vote is probably the most terrifying aspect of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 My arguement is don;t fix becuase it is Women have right to their own body. You don't have a right to tell them what you do even if you believe you should. Maybe we should have a vote but only let Women in Canada vote on it. Why? Men are as a result of pregnancy too. lol amazing what one will force oneself to think when you are trying to be hyper PC. It is their own body, but at some point they are responsible for a body that ss growing within their body. Not rocket science here. Every country in Europe affords some rights to that body within the pregnant woman at some point in gestation. Only Canada confers ZERO rights to the fetus at any stage of development in the western world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 I'm extremely uncomfortable about speaking in absolutes about something that is ultimately going to be between a woman and her doctor. What if evidence of severe congenital defects appear during the 3rd trimester? Are you going to pepper this law so full of exceptions that, ultimately, it becomes ineffective? If you're going to do that, then what's the point of the law? If this law is in fact going to tie doctors and womens hands over medical issues, then it's a goddamned bad law. So what is it exactly that you're proposing here?Look, doctors act upon a fairly rigorous set of ethics, most of which are not legal precepts at all. Other than perhaps to make yourself feel better about late-term abortions, is there any evidence you can provide that this sort of thing actually goes on? How many doctors out there perform late term abortions unless there's some sound medical reasons? I'd wager the number approaches zero, but since there seem to be a few people here who think that there are doctors who are aborting at the eight month mark or something like that, there must be some justification for this belief, and thus for the demand for such a law. I'm proposing legislation similar to what all the countries of Europe have. I am having difficulty remembering what difficulties Europeans are having with their 'restrictive' abortion laws. I'm sure if Beligium can have some sort of abortion legislation Canada can too don't you think? Henry Morgantaler said that he aborted fetus' at nine months gestation. That change your mind? Not that it should matter. I would support law restricting rape even if there were no crimes involving rape this year. Wouldn't you? Why don't you tell us how you feel and give the non-sequitors a rest. I know, it's tiring coming up with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 aww.. so cute and insightful! Thank you. I strive to be both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 Thank you. I strive to be both. but mostly irrelevent and ignorant. Whoops! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 but mostly irrelevent and ignorant.Whoops! Not sure how pointing out that the abortion debate is closed is irrelevant or ignorant. Stephen Harper has said it is closed and since most Canadians want it to be closed, and he has to try to appeal to most Canadians, it will remain closed. Even the poll here validates that. Whoops! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.