Jump to content

Abortion Reform Poll


Mr.Canada

Abortion Reform Poll  

57 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 440
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

35 for abortion

1 against

Nice poll. Not quite what you expected, I imagine. I'm very open to abortion and even I'm surprised with the resounding support.

It's probably not even support so much as "Nooooo, not this again!!!!!!!!"

No one wants this debate except a few social conservatives. Harper isn't going to pull the pin out of the grenade, no one else is either. They've got wars to fight which can actually be won.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people would gravitate out of the paralyzing pro-life and pro-shoice zealots then we can have reasonable accomodation on this issue. Restrictions after 20 weeks is doable and humane.

There is very unlikely going to be reasonable accommodation on the issue. The country is as polarized as Parliament.

If some in government want to make abortion very rare, they should try a different tact aside from legislation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is very unlikely going to be reasonable accommodation on the issue. The country is as polarized as Parliament.

If some in government want to make abortion very rare, they should try a different tact aside from legislation.

The problem with this whole issue...while most Canadians are reasonable, the zealots on each extreme are not. For hard core ProLifers life starts at conception...so no abortions should be allowed. And for the ardent Pro-Choice camp, they fear that giving in to even reasonable demands will embolden the Religious right which could lead to a total ban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hold on a minute. What 'reasonable demand' with regard to abortion should people be accommodating?

By the looks of that poll and the stats, what we have is pretty much exactly what people want-- that abortion should be relatively available in early gestation, and not available except in very extraordinary circumstances later in gestation.

It doesn't make sense to write law in hope of making no practical change whatsoever, yet that's all that 'reasonable demands' seem to be asking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, guys-- I'm definitely in the choice zealotry camp, and will grant that in a heartbeat- Hell, I'll shout it with pride. The notion of the state presuming a high level ownership of my physical self offends me to my toes, and the issue is so visceral and so profound that something so paltry as law can have no bearing on my actions with regard to it.

I honestly fear any quarter given because I know from hard experience that tiny things that can be used for harrassment _will_ be used for harrassment, and any questioning of that fundamental right of security of self is deeply debasing. (I truly don't think any man can truly identify with the prospect of the state enforcing such a 'whole person' takeover...) So I will fight all those peripheral 'not about abortion, but will be used against pregnant women' crap things that come up. Those are separate issues, to be seen one at a time.

But I really, really don't get what 'reasonable demands' with regard to actual abortion law anyone here is asking for.

No one will even answer the question of what they percieve a 'ban' to consist of. Are we talking about not having some abortions covered by medicare, or are we talking throwing women and their doctors into jail? Are we talking about regulatory hoops and bloody beaurocracy, or manslaughter charges? What the heck are these 'reasonable demands'?

What--- exactly what-- reasonable change should be made to current practice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, in a period when we're facing one of the most severe economic downturns in eight decades, in an era when our sovereignty in the north is being challenged by everyone from the Russians to the Danes, in a period when climate change is posing one of the most significant long-term risks to the economy, you want Parliament to open up one of the most contentious, divisive debates to be found for a problem which you even seem to acknowledge doesn't actually exist.

Does that just about sum it up?

Do I want parliament to suspend the nations business to look at this one issue? Of course not, but if they are going to talk about it, my solution would be a winner in my opinion.

Is it ok with you that I have an opinion on this subject?

Let me know cause next time I will ask your permission before I get all uppity and state my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 for abortion

1 against

Nice poll. Not quite what you expected, I imagine. I'm very open to abortion and even I'm surprised with the resounding support.

I voted for no abortions after 3 months. I guess that is pro-abortion?

Whoever said that all the pro-life people were absolutely against abortion altogether?

I also imagine that alot of pro-lifers would call me pro-choice and alot of pro-choicers would call me pro-life.

Life doesn't work that way, most people are moderate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, guys-- I'm definitely in the choice zealotry camp, and will grant that in a heartbeat- Hell, I'll shout it with pride. The notion of the state presuming a high level ownership of my physical self offends me to my toes, and the issue is so visceral and so profound that something so paltry as law can have no bearing on my actions with regard to it.

It wasn't hard to figure out that you were a zealot.

What you don't seem to understand is that your rights would be protected, just that rights would be granted to the living child inside of you after a certain amount of development occurs. That makes for competing rights and leave it to the courts to decide which trumps which. It's not taking rights away from women it's giving them to a child who would be viable outside of the womb. You need to be less myopic in your outlook and realize that this isn't all about you and your feelings. When there is a viable fetus inside of you that could live outside of the womb I don't think the woman should have the right to kill it with the aforementioned exceptions.

No right is absolute.

You don't want to have a baby? Use contraceptives, have an abortion before the fetus has brain activity. If you can't or won't figure it out before 20 weeks of gestation then tough, you have the baby. That is not 'punishment' that is the miracle of life. How self-involved do you have to be to not see that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but I saw one that was quite a bit closer both to 5 months, and to potential viability limits than the one you claim to have chosen.

Do you not find it worth noting that you find my willingness to compromise on this issue perplexing?

Perhaps you should ask yourself why that is and examine your own belief system and ask if it is without fault.

That's what people who are not fanaticals do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do I want parliament to suspend the nations business to look at this one issue? Of course not, but if they are going to talk about it, my solution would be a winner in my opinion.

Your solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Is it ok with you that I have an opinion on this subject?

Let me know cause next time I will ask your permission before I get all uppity and state my opinion.

Oh grow up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The notion of the state presuming a high level ownership of my physical self offends me to my toes, and the issue is so visceral and so profound that something so paltry as law can have no bearing on my actions with regard to it.

I agree wholeheartedly and that is also why I will never accept that the state has a right to control MY body, with regards to what medications I use(cannabis). This is MY body and I will put whatever the F$ck I want into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I really, really don't get what 'reasonable demands' with regard to actual abortion law anyone here is asking for.

The question at hand is how long the woman has to exercise her decision on whether to carry the child to term or not. At one extreme, Mr. Canada believes that a woman's consent to engage in sex is an irrevokable commitment to carry a pregnancy to term and the government should enforce that decision. At the other extreme, a woman can exercise that decision up to the moment of birth. There is no current abortion law so the woman can abort right up until birth legally.

In my view either position is extreme and not consistent with respecting individual rights. A woman should have a period of time to determine if she is willing to host the pregnancy, after that period elapses, the decision on whether to abort or not should be irrevokable and subject to criminal penalties if attempted.

No one will even answer the question of what they percieve a 'ban' to consist of. Are we talking about not having some abortions covered by medicare, or are we talking throwing women and their doctors into jail?

IMV, both. Not only the doctor but the woman who willingly participates should face criminal penalties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question at hand is how long the woman has to exercise her decision on whether to carry the child to term or not. At one extreme, Mr. Canada believes that a woman's consent to engage in sex is an irrevokable commitment to carry a pregnancy to term and the government should enforce that decision. At the other extreme, a woman can exercise that decision up to the moment of birth. There is no current abortion law so the woman can abort right up until birth legally.

In my view either position is extreme and not consistent with respecting individual rights. A woman should have a period of time to determine if she is willing to host the pregnancy, after that period elapses, the decision on whether to abort or not should be irrevokable and subject to criminal penalties if attempted.

IMV, both. Not only the doctor but the woman who willingly participates should face criminal penalties.

Agreed 100%.

At a certain point there are two individuals involved here. That is the reality.

Would be nice if the laws reflected that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank-you Renegade for stepping up to say that you would prosecute and jail all involved. I hope others will abandon the mealy-mouthed, soft-pedal terms like 'ban', too, and say outright that they are asking to have untimely abortions criminalized.

I disagree of course, because I hate the idea of mothers in crisis being forced to explain and prove the hardship of their situation to folks who have nothing on the line regarding the outcome, and be at the mercy of whatever beaurocracy is put in place.... (I think of a panel appointed by Stockwell Day, for instance.) but I do appreciate the integrity of clear and honest speech.

That way, at least those who are wringing their hands over what constitutes 'reasonable' can fully recognize what is being requested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank-you Renegade for stepping up to say that you would prosecute and jail all involved. I hope others will abandon the mealy-mouthed, soft-pedal terms like 'ban', too, and say outright that they are asking to have untimely abortions criminalized.

I agree that we need to be clear in what we mean. It is clear (to me, anyway) that if we crimminalize abortion, criminal penalties will apply, including jail time if deemed appropriate.

I disagree of course, because I hate the idea of mothers in crisis being forced to explain and prove the hardship of their situation to folks who have nothing on the line regarding the outcome, and be at the mercy of whatever beaurocracy is put in place.... (I think of a panel appointed by Stockwell Day, for instance.) but I do appreciate the integrity of clear and honest speech.

Personally, I don't think that mothers should be force to explain anything. They should free to abort within the allowed period for any reason whatsoever. The only explaining they would have to do is if they aborted after the allowed period, and were criminally charged. Then as any criminal does, they have the opportunity to explain their situaiton so that their situation can be taken into account during sentencing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank-you Renegade for stepping up to say that you would prosecute and jail all involved. I hope others will abandon the mealy-mouthed, soft-pedal terms like 'ban', too, and say outright that they are asking to have untimely abortions criminalized.

I disagree of course, because I hate the idea of mothers in crisis being forced to explain and prove the hardship of their situation to folks who have nothing on the line regarding the outcome, and be at the mercy of whatever beaurocracy is put in place.... (I think of a panel appointed by Stockwell Day, for instance.) but I do appreciate the integrity of clear and honest speech.

That way, at least those who are wringing their hands over what constitutes 'reasonable' can fully recognize what is being requested.

I would expect the party that campaigns on less government to (as always) create a program for women of child-bearing years to report a monthly menstruation report. If they have missed a month the report would have to explain what happened and where's the baby. Any unexplained report would be just cause for imprisonment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would expect the party that campaigns on less government to (as always) create a program for women of child-bearing years to report a monthly menstruation report. If they have missed a month the report would have to explain what happened and where's the baby. Any unexplained report would be just cause for imprisonment.

oohh... it's too hard, we can't do it/... despite every other western, industrialized country doing this very thing.

Look, if you disagree with it, state why. But to come back to this 'it's too hard' bullshit, well it just shows the weakness of your position. At the very least, it shows that you haven't put any thought into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...