Abortion Reform Poll

[Renegade]

I have a hard time with the concept of 'implied' consent, when the one who supposedly granted it by implication is standing by, screaming "NONONONONO!"

Why is the concept a problem for you? Legally it is used in at least a couple of areas of law. Basically it means that when your consent isn't explicit, either your action or lack of action can be used legally to indicate consent.

If the one who supposedl granted it is standing by screaming NONONONONO!" that would not be implied consent it would be dissent. I'm not talking about the sex act, because I don't think the act implies any consent. I am talking about the act of aborting or not aborting within a limited and resonable period.

[gordiecanuk]

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.

Amen Molly...AMEN.

The more I'm reading and learning about Harper the more I'm convinced that with a majority he'll move on issues like abortion and same sex marriage.

[Progressive Tory]

So unless a court says so it isn't true? Well gay marriage wasn't allowed until it went to court, so before it was enacted into law you were against it?

Miscarriage is an abnormality, a freak occurrence if you will, not a willful act for the most part.

Abortion has only been before the courts once. Why are you so afraid of any discussion?

No civil rights struggle has ever been easy, it is fraught with many obstacles including the intolerance of others. We must push for and get civil rights for unborn babies who are being slaughtered in the name of progress. This simply won't do in Canada.

It's funny how people are quick to point to Sweden for PPR but won't for abortion regulation isn't it?

So despite the fact that you claim to be open to debate you are still drawing on the 'slaughter' of unborn babies. It's interesting that you're using the civil rights approach which is exactly how anti-abortionists are trying to worm the legislation through. The question boils down to when is a fetus a life and most supporters of criminilizing abortion state that it begins at conception.

Interesting.

So when census time rolls around, we should include the fetuses of all pregnant women on the forms. But this poses a bit of a problem. Unless it was a one night stand, how can we state with certainty the exact age of the fetus. Well.. let me see..I got drunk in mid-September.... could have been then.

Will 'birth' certificates be replaced with 'from the night I did it' documents?

Can I apply for my Child Tax credit the night I got pregnant?

Do we celebrate a Birthday or the anniversary of the night I got laid?

There is absolutely no way of making a fetus a Canadian citizen before they are born. That is why it will be very difficult to use the whole if someone kills a pregnant woman they are charged with a double homicide charge. What if the woman herself didn't know she was pregnant? What about intent? Did the attacker know she was pregnant?

Laws of the land are there to protect it's citizens. You have to be born to be a citizen. No amount of legal wrangling will change that.

[guyser]

So unless a court says so it isn't true? Well gay marriage wasn't allowed until it went to court, so before it was enacted into law you were against it?

Huh?

Abortion is not murder in this country.Thats what the courts have said. WTF does gay marriage have to do with this issue? Anyhow, to answer your question, as a young guy I did think it was wierd, but I grew up and realised how immature that thought is. My mother influenced me the most on this issue since she was in the gift business , a business normally well sprinkled with gays. The crowning part was my father having dinner with them on numerous occasions. He once said, after being asked "dont you find it strange that two guys..." He stopped me and said what business was it of his or mine what they do. And thats from a Scottish father who never swore, never was drunk and lived a straight laced life (pun intended)

Miscarriage is an abnormality, a freak occurrence if you will, not a willful act for the most part.

Oh lord, who farted ? Oh, yeah, its you again.

Would "abnormality" be one in fifty..?..on in twenty..? or maybe perhaps one in five? Perhaps door four, the one that says the abortion rate equals the miscarriage rate?

hint-take door #4

Abortion has only been before the courts once. Why are you so afraid of any discussion?

I am not afraid of any intelligent discussion, and frankly, many on here are, but um....some arent. They only want to put the churches thoughts in process, not to mention the slippery slope of your thoughts.

No civil rights struggle has ever been easy, it is fraught with many obstacles including the intolerance of others. We must push for and get civil rights for unborn babies who are being slaughtered in the name of progress. This simply won't do in Canada.

Except they are not unborn babies, they are not babies , and they are not slaughtered.

I bet you must feel horrible when you killed all those babies and flushed it down the toilet when you were a teenager....and older.

You would actually disown your own flesh and blood for doing something she felt she had to do? You wouyld rid yourself of your own daughter for that? That is nothing but sad. Does it not go against your own christian teachings?

I grant you that your opinions on this matter are hardline, and they are yours, but to banish ones own for a mistake, that in all likelihood could have happened to you when you were young is mind boggling. Add to that, you are a guy, so if it occured in your teenage years, your dad would not have heard about it, since as a guy, we have no burden to carry. We can pay for the process and go get a burger 2 minutes later.

[Mr.Canada]

Ha ha ha. YOu will never know if your daughter has one. It's verrry easy, Mom can just say she has a "feminine" problem. You are obviously oblivious to what happens to a woman's body on a monthly basis.

My stepfather never knew that his daughter (not me, his bio daughter) had an abortion in 1975.

Mom just took her in for a "girl" thing.

Of course your wife would rather have her daughter "ostrasized" and "disowned" than hide something from you right?

Wool --> meet Mr. Canada's eyes!

Drea. I raise my kids properly so that this will never become an issue. We are a Catholic family, the Church and The KoC are a large part of our life and most people we associate with are part of that community or are family.

Do we sit around, sip tea and talk about God constantly? Of coarse not but we do know that if we send any of our children to their friends to play that their parents have solid morals and strong ethics. No drug/alcohol abuse, no pornography lying around. No open sex orgies or same sex relations.

They aren't close to being old enough for dating, Thank God to be honest, lol. The only thing I honestly worry about is the teenage rebellion factor that I need to learn to control before they become out of control. I have quite a few years yet to plan my strategy.

I'm thinking about taking them to see drug addicts, hookers, homeless and homosexuals in their natural habitat. Perhaps volunteer at a drop in or something to teach them what happens to people when they go away from God and instead serve themselves with self indulgence and greed. At the same time teaching them that no one is hopeless and with some compassion, kindness and even just listening to people can bring them back to God to the point where they are productive Christians again. My wife say's we'll have to talk about this, lol.

I just don't want my kids to be like how I was when I was a teenager, which most here would see as normal I'm sure.

[Renegade]

Laws of the land are there to protect it's citizens. You have to be born to be a citizen. No amount of legal wrangling will change that.

The laws protect more than just a countries citizens. For example laws apply to resident aliens as well as citizens.

Laws also can be enacted to protect other entitites. Animal cruelty laws are one example of that. There are examples of countries protecting entities prior to them being born.

[punked]

Drea. I raise my kids properly so that this will never become an issue. We are a Catholic family, the Church and The KoC are a large part of our life and most people we associate with are part of that community or are family.

You are soooooo naive.

[Drea]

Drea. I raise my kids properly so that this will never become an issue. We are a Catholic family, the Church and The KoC are a large part of our life and most people we associate with are part of that community or are family.

Catholic girls (and boys) do stuff behind their parents back. They are no different than others.

Do we sit around, sip tea and talk about God constantly? Of coarse not but we do know that if we send any of our children to their friends to play that their parents have solid morals and strong ethics. No drug/alcohol abuse, no pornography lying around. No open sex orgies or same sex relations.

Do you seriously think that secular families have "orgies", leave the "Playboy" laying around, get "wasted" in front of the kids, or allow Uncle Fred and Uncle Tim to f*&k on the couch during the Christmas holidays?

You really do think you are better than everyone else dontcha?

They aren't close to being old enough for dating, Thank God to be honest, lol. The only thing I honestly worry about is the teenage rebellion factor that I need to learn to control before they become out of control. I have quite a few years yet to plan my strategy.

Good luck! This is what we all want --good kids. How does one GET a good kid? Allow them responsibility and make them accountable from a young age. The rest is really up to them, not you. You don't own them, they are only on loan for a while. Soon they will no longer be children, but young adults who need to be able to push boundaries -- and they will push, I guarantee it.

I'm thinking about taking them to see drug addicts, hookers, homeless and homosexuals in their natural habitat. Perhaps volunteer at a drop in or something to teach them what happens to people when they go away from God and instead serve themselves with self indulgence and greed. At the same time teaching them that no one is hopeless and with some compassion, kindness and even just listening to people can bring them back to God to the point where they are productive Christians again. My wife say's we'll have to talk about this, lol.

All kids should see this crap in real life. Except the homo part, how are you going to find two men or two women to do "disgusting things" in front of your children? How will you ever find two people with such low morals?

I just don't want my kids to be like how I was when I was a teenager, which most here would see as normal I'm sure.

so don't make the same mistakes your parents made. By 15 in the 1970's you can guarantee that a kid would have tried cigs and pot, perhaps acid and certainly alcohol. But ahhh, we live in a wonderful time where our kids are educated, unlike us who couldn't do what we wanted simply because we "weren't old enough". Today our kids are much more savvy than we were.

[Molly]

Renegade- sorry. I probably shouldn't have made that comment, because I honestly don't expect many (any) to share the piquancy of that irony with me. It's just a personal rueful headshake at seeing that 'the more things change, the more they stay the same' that I should have kept to myself.

I understand (and largely respect) what you mean with it, and am not challenging the validity of the concept. (Maybe in another conversation if things get really esoteric, but not now.)

[guyser]

Drea. I raise my kids properly so that this will never become an issue. We are a Catholic family, the Church and The KoC are a large part of our life and most people we associate with are part of that community or are family.

You could have them take one of those "christian pledges for virginity"....except studies show they dont work and actually those that plesdge have a higher rate of STD's.

Word is, dont be so sure what the mind of a teenager will do.

No drug/alcohol abuse, no pornography lying around. No open sex orgies or same sex relations.

Who would? You know apart from me dropping off my 12 year old daughter over at Pete's and Sarahs on the next block. Funny thing, they were in the middle of a 30 person gang bang. Pffft, she is 12, she has to learn.

I'm thinking about taking them to see drug addicts, hookers, homeless and homosexuals in their natural habitat.

Hell, I have a better idea. Take them to New Life Church and kill three of your five lessons in one shot. They could have lunch with Ted Haggard , upstanding christian he is. ( I couldnt resist)

With lunch at teds they get-drug addict, hookers, homos AND chritian teachings.

[Renegade]

Renegade- sorry. I probably shouldn't have made that comment, because I honestly don't expect many (any) to share the piquancy of that irony with me. It's just a personal rueful headshake at seeing that 'the more things change, the more they stay the same' that I should have kept to myself.

I understand (and largely respect) what you mean with it, and am not challenging the validity of the concept. (Maybe in another conversation if things get really esoteric, but not now.)

Molly OK Thanks. I as well do understand and respect your position. I firmly consider myself in the pro-choice camp, but feel that it needs to be properly framed in a philosphical context of respect of rights.

[Mr.Canada]

Catholic girls (and boys) do stuff behind their parents back. They are no different than others.

Oh, I have no doubt of this. I had Catholic kids as friends back in the day and they would drink, have sex, the whole 9 yards. I'm not saying it'll be easy but I have to try. I spout a lot on here Drea but some of it just isn't practical. In reality all I can do is teach them the best I can and hope for the best.

Do you seriously think that secular families have "orgies", leave the "Playboy" laying around, get "wasted" in front of the kids, or allow Uncle Fred and Uncle Tim to f*&k on the couch during the Christmas holidays?

LOL, obviously not. I just wrote it that way for shock value. I really just mean improper things.

You really do think you are better than everyone else dontcha?

Good luck! This is what we all want --good kids. How does one GET a good kid? Allow them responsibility and make them accountable from a young age. The rest is really up to them, not you. You don't own them, they are only on loan for a while. Soon they will no longer be children, but young adults who need to be able to push boundaries -- and they will push, I guarantee it.

Probably.

All kids should see this crap in real life. Except the homo part, how are you going to find two men or two women to do "disgusting things" in front of your children? How will you ever find two people with such low morals?

Very funny Drea. You know I see homosexuality as immorality. I was thinking more of a stroll down Church St. in TO during the summer would suffice.

so don't make the same mistakes your parents made. By 15 in the 1970's you can guarantee that a kid would have tried cigs and pot, perhaps acid and certainly alcohol. But ahhh, we live in a wonderful time where our kids are educated, unlike us who couldn't do what we wanted simply because we "weren't old enough". Today our kids are much more savvy than we were.

Hrmmm that's what I'm afraid of. I just my kids to be good, clean and moral. Not like I was.

[WIP]

Again, I don't have any issue with late-term termination due to complications which arise from the pregnancy and threaten the health of the mother. I do however have an issue with late-term termination with a normal healthy pregnancy.

And I'm inclined to agree that some point during the third trimester, such as fetal viability outside the womb, or development of the neocortex - where consciousness arises, indicate a stage of development where the right to life may outweigh the mother's intentions to end the pregnancy.

I haven't read all of your comments, but I don't see much merit in argument your making about implied consent if you're not using that argument in all stages of pregnancy. If you're going to argue that a woman has given her consent to have a baby if she becomes pregnant, then why is it only important in the third trimester?

To me, the contentious issue is one of competing interests. It's a stretch to argue that a zygote or an embryo have any interests worth protecting, since they have no qualities that are any different from other animals during the early stage of development.

Later on, the interests of the fetus are gradually developing as it grows in it's mother's womb. The mother's privacy rights and freedoms can be threatened when an outside agency, such as the state, steps in and says "you're going to have that baby!" Earlier in the pregnancy, banning abortion indicates that the society does not consider the pregnant woman's privacy rights to decide what to do with her own body, to have any merit. Allowing unrestricted abortion up to the day before delivery likewise would indicate that the society has little regard for the life of a developing fetus which is almost at the same level of development as a newborn baby.

[WIP]

You should have no legal obligation to be the donor even if you are the only donor who can save the person's life. When the government can step in is if you consent to be a donor and then at some point have a change of heart. The government can set down the terms of what implies consent, and when is that consent revokable and at what point does it become irrevokable. (Can you refuse consent as or after they are implanting it in the recepient?)

Have you ever changed your mind after agreeing to do something? From what I understand, this particular procedure is much easier and less invasive now, but at one time, being a bone-marrow donor meant having a major operation and a painful recovery period. If someone agreed, and then chickened out after discovering what they were in for, it would be regrettable, but I think they should be able to opt out of the agreement.

[WIP]

WIP- anyone under 50 is too young to remember that contraception was illegal , too, until only shortly before that.

That's right. The Pill ended the baby boom, and it made it possible for women to decide when they would get pregnant and how many children they would have.....and surprise surprise, everywhere that birth control and family planning came into practice, the result has been to delay starting families for education and getting careers established, and having fewer children than in the old days.

It makes me laugh to hear this generation argue against abortion by advising use of contraception, because they were not so long ago considered to be equally immoral, and for the same reasons. Life is _Gods_ decision, and if you dare have sex, you've consented to pregnancy!

The Catholic Church is still pushing the doctrine that contraception is a violation of Natural Law; but in the West, at least 90% of their parishoners ignore these rules anyway.

Consequently, I have a hard time with the concept of 'implied' consent, when the one who supposedly granted it by implication is standing by, screaming "NONONONONO!"

This implied consent argument doesn't do anything except blame someone for the circumstances they find themselves in.

[WIP]

Catholic girls (and boys) do stuff behind their parents back. They are no different than others.

Man! This guy is dreaming in technicolor! Teenagers are going to hide everything they don't want their parents to know about, but the strictest, most conservative parents are generally the ones who are blindsided by reality when their son gets busted for pot or their daughter gets pregnant because the kids are used to having to hide everything from them in order to have a little fun.

I know one thing -- my fondest high school memories were going out with my friends on the weekend to try to meet up with some of the girls from the "Loretto Academy" -- an all girls Catholic school, whose parents were paying to send them there for a good Catholic education. There must have been some connection with oppressive rules and constant lectures from nuns that made these girls much more fun than the average high school girl.

Do you seriously think that secular families have "orgies", leave the "Playboy" laying around, get "wasted" in front of the kids, or allow Uncle Fred and Uncle Tim to f*&k on the couch during the Christmas holidays?

Of course he does! People that are chaffing under a burden of self-imposed and church imposed taboos automatically assume that everyone who has their own personal code of conduct , is wallowing in sin, going from one orgy to the next. Mr. C is imposing his darker fantasies on the unchurched.

[Renegade]

And I'm inclined to agree that some point during the third trimester, such as fetal viability outside the womb, or development of the neocortex - where consciousness arises, indicate a stage of development where the right to life may outweigh the mother's intentions to end the pregnancy.

I don' t really know what the right point is. I'm not an expert nor have I done enough research to determine conclusively, however for me the third trimester seems very late, given that there have been babies which have born and survived at 22 weeks.

I haven't read all of your comments, but I don't see much merit in argument your making about implied consent if you're not using that argument in all stages of pregnancy. If you're going to argue that a woman has given her consent to have a baby if she becomes pregnant, then why is it only important in the third trimester?

I've never said that it is important only in the third trimester. What I have said that there needs to be a defined period after which consent to carry the pregnancy through to term is implied. We can debate upon when that period should be but the proposal that there is a defined time to decide does not change.

To me, the contentious issue is one of competing interests. It's a stretch to argue that a zygote or an embryo have any interests worth protecting, since they have no qualities that are any different from other animals during the early stage of development.

Later on, the interests of the fetus are gradually developing as it grows in it's mother's womb. The mother's privacy rights and freedoms can be threatened when an outside agency, such as the state, steps in and says "you're going to have that baby!" Earlier in the pregnancy, banning abortion indicates that the society does not consider the pregnant woman's privacy rights to decide what to do with her own body, to have any merit. Allowing unrestricted abortion up to the day before delivery likewise would indicate that the society has little regard for the life of a developing fetus which is almost at the same level of development as a newborn baby.

You are reiterating and essentially agreeing with what I have already said that it is a balance of rights.

Edited January 7, 2009 by Renegade

[Renegade]

Have you ever changed your mind after agreeing to do something? From what I understand, this particular procedure is much easier and less invasive now, but at one time, being a bone-marrow donor meant having a major operation and a painful recovery period. If someone agreed, and then chickened out after discovering what they were in for, it would be regrettable, but I think they should be able to opt out of the agreement.

Of course there is a period to change your mind, but there is also a point at which the donor's mind cannot be changed. At what point do we establish that the donor has made a non-revokable commitment to donate and "ownership" of the donated organ transfers to the recepient? Is it at the point of agreement to donate, is it some timelimit afterward, is it up to the point where the donor undergoes the operation, is it up to the point where is implanted in the recepient.

If the point is never established and it is allowed that donor can always change their mind, presumably the donor still "owns" the donated organ even after transplantation. You can imagine the mess that would ensue if a donor tried to exert authority over a donated organ after transplantaion.

[Renegade]

This implied consent argument doesn't do anything except blame someone for the circumstances they find themselves in.

If you don't agree that the woman at some point consents to host the pregnancy, how do you reconcile that with your position that late-term abortions should not be permitted. If a woman has never consented to the pregnancy, she in theory can refuse to host the pregnancy right up until birth, despite the fact that unborn baby depends upon the mother for life. This is analogous to your example of someone opting out of donation at the last minute. Would that not be regrettable but permitted according to your viewpoint?

Essentially I see that you have inconsistent postions between organ donation and late-term abortion. With organ donation you are ok for the donor to refuse donation right up until the last minute even if it means death of the recepient. With late-term abortion you are giving the unborn baby's rights prioritiy over the mother's wishes. Why the inconsistency?

For me the resolution and difference in the situation is "implied consent" and when it consent can be revoked. It seems to me a reasonable restriction on the mother to restrict the period in which she can revoke consent to host the pregnancy. I would say the consent in the donor example is also requred and at some point will also be irrevokable, however circumstances allow us to permit the donor to revoke consent closer to the time of transplantation.

BTW, implied consent or implied agreement is not a new concept. When you drive, you are legally considered to have given implied consent to be pulled over and breathalized. When you live with someone for a set period, you are legally assumed to implcitly agreed to a common-law marriage. When you have a baby and don't give it up for adoption, you have implicitly agreed to accept the responsibilies of parenthood. It is got nothing to do with blame and eveything to do with how we determine what constutes consent and agreement.

[Black Dog]

I still feel the same way and would disown any of my family that had one. That is my personal opinion. However this is too extreme by Canadian standards and Canadians for the most part don't like social extremes. So compromise is in order as through compromise can change actually happen. If anyone keeps pushing extremes it will turn most everyone off except the most hardcore and no change will occur. If a more moderate approach is used an idea will attract a wider audience and opens the possibility of change. Some change is better than none so I'm hedging my bets.

So you're willing to compromise on murder because it's politically expedient to do so? Wow. WWJD?

[madmax]

The Catholic Church is still pushing the doctrine that contraception is a violation of Natural Law; but in the West, at least 90% of their parishoners ignore these rules anyway.

Women to Pope "You no play the game, You no make the rules"

[fellowtraveller]

I am a bit surpirsed at the overwhelming nature of the poll result.

A clear majority support the status quo, abortion on demand.

87% support either the status quo or allowing abortion with minimal restrictions.

Game, set, match- and representative of Canadians overall IMO.

[Shakeyhands]

Interesting ad placement

Lol...

Edited January 7, 2009 by Shakeyhands

[guyser]

Interesting ad placement

Lol...

....too funny!

[madmax]

Interesting ad placement

Lol...