Abortion Reform Poll

[guyser]

And if you do I hope they turn out like this

You want his kids to be Underwear models?

[Renegade]

Not at all. I have read of cases in the US that would fall precisely into the category you describe.... but the same cases simply could not occur here, at this time. If a combination of things changed here, perhaps they could, but as things sit at present, if is virtually impossible. The case you cited represents a seriously unhealthy mother, who was smashingly unsuccessful in any case.

Then please cite those cases. You have indicated that in this case her actions indicate mental health issues. That may indeed be true, I'm not qualified to determine. But what I would l like to understand is the difference in actions in cases you know of in the US.

Again, not at all. In Canada it is possible to commit pedophilic acts, and it does indeed happen often, but it is virtually impossible for a healthy mother to access late term abortion of a healthy fetus, and if it occurs at all, it is extremely, extremely rare.

Why is it impossible? Is it impossible for a attempt self-abortion if she cannot get a medical practicioner to perform an abortion? Is she allowed to recklessly endanger her unborn fetus through exposure to toxic levels of drugs and alcohol? I'm really not following why Canada is such a special place that it makes these things impossible.

As to other countries regulations causing hardship... the most recent anecdotal situation I've run across (a couple of days ago) concerned a musician performing in Germany, having insufficient funds at her immediate disposal to be able to dash somewhere less restrictive (or get home if fired, which would happen if she took a few days off), running afoul of clinic holidays, making the overview requirement nearly impossible to meet.. looking for advice and help so as to get an early abortion somehow, instead of ending up having it many weeks later, once she could get back to the states. I know it's not immediately on point, nor a particularly awful circumstance, but what should have been quick and easy, and not afoul of anyones rules, was adding up to a major problem that was going to cost her a small fortune, her job and/or throw her into the middle of exactly this ethical time-limit dilemma. No one thought Germany's regulations would be onerous, problematic or much of an impediment, but they were. Folks actually think of them as being quite accommodating.

Come on now Molly, I really dont see this case demonstrates that the musician in question endured "grotesquely more hardship than it could concieveable prevent". If you believe that, your definition is vastly different than mine. Do you weigh the amount of hardship of this woman not being able to arrange her schedule so that she could get an abortion on time against the pain inflicted on the unborn child which it undoubtly had to endure by the woman's delay in getting an abortion?

[Renegade]

Wouldn't a doctor be infinitely better equipped to judge something like this than a legislator?

Yes, I imagine so. So IMV doctors should be given wide discretion to determine under what circumstance late-term abortions should occur, so long as controls were in place that doctors didn't abuse this position of trust be routinely approving late-term abortions without just cause.

[ToadBrother]

Yes, I imagine so. So IMV doctors should be given wide discretion to determine under what circumstance late-term abortions should occur, so long as controls were in place that doctors didn't abuse this position of trust be routinely approving late-term abortions without just cause.

There are already mechanisms in place to deal with doctors who go over the line. Quite frankly, this late-term abortion line is pretty much fabrication. It doesn't really exist, but it's the "in" that the pro-lifers are trying to use to justify getting abortion legislation back on the books. It's the thin edge of the wedge.

I cannot see a doctor ethically being able to perform a late-term abortion, particularly the very late-term abortions that people like Mr. Canada are talking about, unless it's to save the mother's life or because of some horrific abnormality.

Edited January 9, 2009 by ToadBrother

[stignasty]

It's the thin edge of the wedge.

A wedge is all this is. In a period where there might be an election the last thing the Conservatives want is to have is the economy being front and centre. They need all the wedges they can muster in order to shore up support from their base. We all know that people like "Mr. Canada" will be running to the polls in the event of an election to vote against those baby-killin' libruls.

[Renegade]

There are already mechanisms in place to deal with doctors who go over the line.

Fine, I'm fine to take your word that there are such mechanisms, but the fact is that needs to be a line drawn to determine if a doctor is going over the line.

And if you agree that it is the doctor who is the best position to determine whether a late-term abortion is required, than you are also implicitly agreeing that the woman is not.

Quite frankly, this late-term abortion line is pretty much fabrication. It doesn't really exist, but it's the "in" that the pro-lifers are trying to use to justify getting abortion legislation back on the books. It's the thin edge of the wedge.

I think too many in the pro-choice camp worry about what political manoevres will pull based upon the legsislation. That is not the subject of my consideration. My position is simply based upon recognition of rights of both entities and the remediation which is necessary if those rights are not respected.

I cannot see a doctor ethically being able to perform a late-term abortion, particularly the very late-term abortions that people like Mr. Canada are talking about, unless it's to save the mother's life or because of some horrific abnormality.

If we could assume everyone in the world would adhere to the same ethical code we could probably eliminate most of the criminal laws on the books. Laws exist to precisely define acceptable behaviour quite separate from relying on individal's ethical limits.

I'm pretty sure where there is ethical grey area to be tested, sooner or later someone will test it.

[Black Dog]

You want his kids to be Underwear models?

Super gay underwear models.

[Topaz]

I'm surprised by male view on this topic that you aren't for it, then you would have to "Gay-bash" so much.One also find that the people against abortion will also say "exception of". Either you are for it or against it. Prevention to pregnancy should be the first thing and if a woman does get pregnant,then its her decision if she single to take the pill to rid of the egg or have the baby and keep it or put it up for adoption.

[ToadBrother]

Fine, I'm fine to take your word that there are such mechanisms, but the fact is that needs to be a line drawn to determine if a doctor is going over the line.

It is, it's called ethics. Doctors must adhere to much stricter ones (apparently) than politicians (unfortunately).

And if you agree that it is the doctor who is the best position to determine whether a late-term abortion is required, than you are also implicitly agreeing that the woman is not.

All medical procedures, regardless of an individual's choices, must pass by a doctor. That's because it is ultimately the doctor that performs that procedure. If a doctor feels a procedure is unethical, then he will not do it. It's a woman's choice, but if she can't find a doctor to carry it out, then she's out of luck. That's true of abortions and ingrown toenail removal.

I think too many in the pro-choice camp worry about what political manoevres will pull based upon the legsislation. That is not the subject of my consideration. My position is simply based upon recognition of rights of both entities and the remediation which is necessary if those rights are not respected.

Regardless of what your motives will or will not be, legislation is a dangerous step for something that is essentially between a patient and her doctor.

If we could assume everyone in the world would adhere to the same ethical code we could probably eliminate most of the criminal laws on the books. Laws exist to precisely define acceptable behaviour quite separate from relying on individal's ethical limits.

And yet in many other instances of what amounts to a doctor's prerogative, there are no sharply defined laws, no lines in the sand. Ethics governs the medical community much much more than legislation, and yet you, for some reason, want to treat abortion differently than, say, double-blind studies. Why is that?

I'm pretty sure where there is ethical grey area to be tested, sooner or later someone will test it.

Really, where in the case of abortions where is the ethical grey area?

Edited January 9, 2009 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

A wedge is all this is. In a period where there might be an election the last thing the Conservatives want is to have is the economy being front and centre. They need all the wedges they can muster in order to shore up support from their base. We all know that people like "Mr. Canada" will be running to the polls in the event of an election to vote against those baby-killin' libruls.

I don't buy it. In part the reason for the Conservatives modest electoral successes (two minority governments) is because Harper has done everything in his power to force the party to the center. He has clearly taken every step since the Conservatives little policy convention to make it clear that certain policies will not be adopted by his government. He cannot afford, particularly with a new a potentially dangerous Liberal leader, to let the abortion bogeyman jump up. If the Liberals are indeed back in play, centrist Canadians who have for the last two elections been supporting the Conservatives could switch allegiance, and the Conservatives will lose big time.

[DrGreenthumb]

I think it is very important for informed women to talk to other women about the anti-woman ideology of the Conservative party. Women should not trust their freedom and equality to guys like Harper. The religious right especially has always been the most guilty of making women's rights always secondary to men's. Father knows best, the head of the household, blah blah blah, it is culturally ingrained in them to believe that a woman's purpose is to serve man.

Remind your fellow woman every chance you get that the Conservatives tried to cancel pay-equity legislation for women. Remember to tell them that had the coalition not stopped them the conservatives would have already acted against equality for women. Tell them about how Tory MP Rod Brinooge has mused about introducing a private member's bill to remove a woman's right to choose wether or not she wants to continue an unplanned pregnancy. Women would suffer HUGE setbacks to their equality and dignity if the conservatives ever have enough votes in Parliament to make the social changes they have planned for Canada.

Again this is a plea to ALL women reading this. Please take the time to warn others what the conservatives really have in mind for women in this country. It is much harder to win back rights you have had stripped away than it is to protect those that you currently have. Do not allow Steven Harper and his ilk to take ownership of you and decide what rights he will "allow" you to have. It would be a very costly error.

Humans had the right to ALL the plants on this earth until only about 80-90 years ago. People like me have been fighting to have that right returned for nearly a century. I don't know if we will ever legally have that right again. They tell us those plants are bad because they are illegal and illegal because they are bad. Logic and common sense ,it seems, are useless weapons against their circular logic. These ideologues routinely ignore science and statistics that do not fit into their plans to force their views on others. It is not enough for them not to have an abortion because they believe it is wrong, they are not happy unlesss nobody else can have an abortion because "they" think it is wrong. They cannot simply choose to not use cannabis, believeing that it goes against their morals; they NEED to ENFORCE their morals on the rest of society and manate that nobody else may do anything that they disapprove of. For the sake of my three daughters, my wife, my mother and my sister, and all you wonderful women out there I certainly hope you aren't foolish enough to trust Harper with your freedoms.

[DrGreenthumb]

I don't buy it. In part the reason for the Conservatives modest electoral successes (two minority governments) is because Harper has done everything in his power to force the party to the center. He has clearly taken every step since the Conservatives little policy convention to make it clear that certain policies will not be adopted by his government. He cannot afford, particularly with a new a potentially dangerous Liberal leader, to let the abortion bogeyman jump up. If the Liberals are indeed back in play, centrist Canadians who have for the last two elections been supporting the Conservatives could switch allegiance, and the Conservatives will lose big time.

I'm pretty sure they will lose big time sooner than later. Soon Harper and the Conservative party will be nothing but a pale memory of a bad nightmare.

[WIP]

If there was a definitave and measurable way to measuring the development of a fetus, I would be all for it as a measure. However even if there was, the mother would need to constantly assess the development of the fetus to make sure she did not broach any limit on when abortion could take place based upon fetal development. IMV this is too onerous and a time period is a much clearer way to put limits around the abortion decision.

But, because fetal development varies, a determination of viability, or level of cortex development would have to be left up to the doctor to determine.

One determinant over whether the rights of the fetus should be considered, that I haven't mentioned yet in this abortion debate is what stage a fetus can feel pain. There are some specialists such as K.J. Anand, who puts in a lot of appearances on behalf of pro life groups, claiming that his studies on fetal response to stimuli are evidence that a fetus can feel pain long before 20 weeks; while the majority of neurologists say that the Cortex cannot receive any pain signals delivered to the Thalamus until at least the 28 week period, when thalamacortical nerve connections are being made. This dispute not only clouds the abortion issue, it also affects decisions of whether a fetus needs to be administered an anesthetic before an operation is performed in utero.

BTW, we should distinguish between fetal viability and at what point the fetus is considered an individual with rights. If significant milestones of human life are achieved, then IMV, the rights of the fetus must be considered even before fetal viablity.

The argument from loss of potential, is one of the few secular arguments available for those who claim every fertilized egg has to be taken to term. The problem with arguing that abortion denies the potential to achieve human life is that in the real world, all kinds of potentials have to be denied. In the U.S., when the Stem Cell controversy was raging, the supporters of George Bush's idiotic goal of hatching all of the frozen embryos in fertility clinics and adopting them out, is that there were more than half a million frozen embryos already in cold storage at the time the clinics are forced to keep in storage. The practicalities of finding half a million women seeking implantation of every embryo (remember the women who seek this procedure only want the best ones) are ludicrous.

Also, the fact that a zygote has its own individual DNA strand, tells us nothing of what its future potential will be. The zygote's future physical appearance, sex, personality, and everything else that defines human beings will depend on how genes are expressed and coded into proteins. Environmental factors, even in the womb, will determine its health and likelihood of birth defects, how the brain will develop, and shape the personal mental qualities that the person has later on in life.

Oh but I am, and I (or my designate) have a right to my body and possetions after I'm dead.

IMV, the interest of society do not overrule individual rights. IMV, The family (or whomever the person's beneficiary is) has the absolute right to do whatever they want with the body. If we allow the state to decide that its interest override individual rights, where does that end?

None of our personal rights are absolute, so why should this one be? Freedom of speech has limitations, and I don't agree with new hate speech laws, but that's another issue.

Your property rights aren't absolute. The government can put an easement on your property if they want to run a hydro tower through, or expropriate it to build a road.

Thirty years ago, civil libertarians tried to fight police ride checks as a violation of protections from unwarranted search and seizure; the state decided that the benefit of catching a few drunks outweighed the inconveniences of non-drinking motorists.

Can the state take the persons financial assets because it is running a budget deficit because the state's need is greater? If the state has a great need for organs, IMV they should put the right incentives in place for the individual or the famly to voluntary transfer the organs.

Great! The reason why most countries are trying to avoid the development of an organ market is because of the potential risk of abuse. I don't know if the rumours are true or not, but for years we've been hearing stories from China, that they execute prisoners to sell their organs through private channels.

I know it is not practical to expect foolish people awaiting bodily resurrection to sign their organ donor cards, but hypothetically speaking, this should be a moral obligation for everyone, not something that requires incentives to sweeten the pot.

[Renegade]

But, because fetal development varies, a determination of viability, or level of cortex development would have to be left up to the doctor to determine.

Yes but unless the woman has a daily visit to her doctor to monitor the state of fetal development she will not know, that using some kind of other measurement other than time (which is easily measurable) is not really practical.

I realize that fetal development varies, therefore we have to use the most conservative period possible. i.e we have to assume that the fetal development is at the extreme rapid end of the range in setting a time-limit for a woman making an abortion decision.

The argument from loss of potential, is one of the few secular arguments available for those who claim every fertilized egg has to be taken to term. The problem with arguing that abortion denies the potential to achieve human life is that in the real world, all kinds of potentials have to be denied. In the U.S., when the Stem Cell controversy was raging, the supporters of George Bush's idiotic goal of hatching all of the frozen embryos in fertility clinics and adopting them out, is that there were more than half a million frozen embryos already in cold storage at the time the clinics are forced to keep in storage. The practicalities of finding half a million women seeking implantation of every embryo (remember the women who seek this procedure only want the best ones) are ludicrous.

Also, the fact that a zygote has its own individual DNA strand, tells us nothing of what its future potential will be. The zygote's future physical appearance, sex, personality, and everything else that defines human beings will depend on how genes are expressed and coded into proteins. Environmental factors, even in the womb, will determine its health and likelihood of birth defects, how the brain will develop, and shape the personal mental qualities that the person has later on in life.

No I'm not talking about loss of potential. Fetal viability is the measure of whether the fetus can servive outside the womb. The fetus may be be considered a thinking human being even before it has the ability to survive outside the womb. Technology may change this and possibly at one point a human would have the potential to completely develop outside the womb.

None of our personal rights are absolute, so why should this one be? Freedom of speech has limitations, and I don't agree with new hate speech laws, but that's another issue.

Your property rights aren't absolute. The government can put an easement on your property if they want to run a hydro tower through, or expropriate it to build a road.

Well nothing is absolute in that the government can override any individual right. Personally I think that is simply wrong for the state to forcibly extract my organs without my permission.

BTW, how would you feel if this "greater good" argument was used to limit or ban abortion. Say the countries birth rate was very low and there were a large supply of willing adoptive parents, can the state ban abortions and force women to carry a pregnancy to term for the "greater good"?

Thirty years ago, civil libertarians tried to fight police ride checks as a violation of protections from unwarranted search and seizure; the state decided that the benefit of catching a few drunks outweighed the inconveniences of non-drinking motorists.

Not exactly. The argument used by the state was that the driving was a privilidege and the motorist consented to conform to the rules of the road including to submit to breath checks (ie implied consent). Even the state acknowledged that it could not impose these actions without the consent of the individual.

Great! The reason why most countries are trying to avoid the development of an organ market is because of the potential risk of abuse. I don't know if the rumours are true or not, but for years we've been hearing stories from China, that they execute prisoners to sell their organs through private channels.

I know it is not practical to expect foolish people awaiting bodily resurrection to sign their organ donor cards, but hypothetically speaking, this should be a moral obligation for everyone, not something that requires incentives to sweeten the pot.

States can choose between living with a shortage or living with the risk of abuse due to people selling organs. A far worse choice is for the state to forcibly extract organs from people. BTW, why wait till they die? The state can pull eveyone's spare kidney to feed the donation bank.

What ia "moral obligation" is is subjective. Some people feel that havesting organs out of a dead body is sacreligious. Who are you to impose your moral standard on each individual?

You wan't my organs, by all means convince me, or incent me, but don't coerce me.

Edited January 10, 2009 by Renegade

[Mr.Canada]

This is so sad I can barely find the words. Your poor children. 'Strong hetro genes' What the hell are they? You said that homosexuality is not genetic, so how do you get 'strong hetro genes' and how do you know you have them? You can't walk by a Playboy magazine without picking it up? You drool when a woman enters the room? What? Is there a cure for strong hetro genes because they sound painful, since they cause your mind to narrow and could split your skull.

I love the whole delusional 'I, his father calls the shots...'

Your children, if you have any, will have nowhere to go when they get into trouble, because there are no grey areas with you. Very sad.

I don't think you read my post. I said homosexuality isn't genetic but would humour the poster and say that it is for the scope of the post...sheesh people really need to take more time to read and comprehend the writing.

What are strong hetro genes? Look at some guys at they look wimpy, weak and small. These guys would have been killed off easily in medieval times then you look at others such as myself and they're well muscled and rugged looking. Good, strong, manly genes makes strong manly men. Small, weak, pathetic genes makes small, weak men and possibly homosexuals. Only the strong survive the weak choose homosexuality as a way out of their own short comings. They're so weak that they need to act like women in order to live with their own weakness.

There are no gray areas with the law either. Can you sort of kill someone? No either he's dead or he isn't. Gray areas are the domain of the secular socialist. Strong people make decisions and deal in absolutes. We aren't afraid to make a decision like gray area people are. You're too afraid to offend anyone like they couldn't take the rejection and kill themselves. The country is raising indecisive wimps and I won't be part of that. My kids will make firm decisions and stick to it,the men will be men and the girls will be girls. My boys won't be girls even though socialists are trying to neuter the men and make them all a-sexual, disgusting.

[Drea]

What are strong hetro genes? Look at some guys at they look wimpy, weak and small. These guys would have been killed off easily in medieval times then you look at others such as myself and they're well muscled and rugged looking. Good, strong, manly genes makes strong manly men. Small, weak, pathetic genes makes small, weak men and possibly homosexuals. Only the strong survive the weak choose homosexuality as a way out of their own short comings. They're so weak that they need to act like women in order to live with their own weakness.

I almost peed myself laughing!

Stephan Dion is a hetro -- how could that be possible in your weird little world?

And that fat bastard at Bountiful? Is he your ultimate hetro-male hero with his fat gut and peacock strut? Have you called him and asked him how to be a "man"? He must be one helluva man to "get" all those girls to screw eh?

ppft.

[Progressive Tory]

I don't think you read my post. I said homosexuality isn't genetic but would humour the poster and say that it is for the scope of the post...sheesh people really need to take more time to read and comprehend the writing.

What are strong hetro genes? Look at some guys at they look wimpy, weak and small. These guys would have been killed off easily in medieval times then you look at others such as myself and they're well muscled and rugged looking. Small, weak, pathetic genes makes small, weak men and possibly homosexuals. Only the strong survive the weak choose homosexuality as a way out of their own short comings. They're so weak that they need to act like women in order to live with their own weakness.

There are no gray areas with the law either. Can you sort of kill someone? No either he's dead or he isn't. Gray areas are the domain of the secular socialist. Strong people make decisions and deal in absolutes. We aren't afraid to make a decision like gray area people are. You're too afraid to offend anyone like they couldn't take the rejection and kill themselves. The country is raising indecisive wimps and I won't be part of that. My kids will make firm decisions and stick to it,the men will be men and the girls will be girls. My boys won't be girls even though socialists are trying to neuter the men and make them all a-sexual, disgusting.

"I said homosexuality isn't genetic" would mean that sexuality isn't genetic, so how to get hetro genes? However, many scientist contradict your statement: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/scotts/b...ns/nih-upi.html

"Good, strong, manly genes makes strong manly men." How about Bob Paris "Bob Paris is considered one of the greatest athletes in the history of bodybuilding... In 2006, Flex Magazine ranked Bob Paris the most aesthetic athlete in the history of bodybuilding In the July 1989 issue of Ironman magazine, Paris came out in the media as a gay man..." He's got good strong manly genes. This doesn't prove you're not gay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Paris

And Humina humina... http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&...=1&ct=title

"you look at others such as myself and they're well muscled and rugged looking." I'll have to take your word for that, but there are also muscular women. Are you sure you're not just tapping into your feminine side? http://www.female-bodybuilders.org/

"Can you sort of kill someone?" In another thread you said you couldn't care less if the Israelis and Palestines killed each other, so long as they didn't kill Christians. Not very Christain-like. Are you sure you're not an athiest, preaching for your cause, by making Cjhristians look bad? You have heard of the Ten Commandments, right?

[Mr.Canada]

I almost peed myself laughing!

Stephan Dion is a hetro -- how could that be possible in your weird little world?

LOL, then my post had the desired effect. This is what PTory was looking for in a reply so I gave it to him. I obviously wasn't serious. If I really thought this I would be in need of some professional help.

[Progressive Tory]

LOL, then my post had the desired effect. This is what PTory was looking for in a reply so I gave it to him. I obviously wasn't serious. If I really thought this I would be in need of some professional help.

"If I really thought this I would be in need of some professional help." So what do you think?

[Mr.Canada]

"If I really thought this I would be in need of some professional help." So what do you think?

I think I'm a very principled person who lives his life responsibly and properly. I have no problems living my life following rules. Seems the secular people are too lazy to want to have to follow rules and want to have rampant homosexuality, drugs and alcohol abuse, open sexual relations, open drug use in parks in front of our kids, condoms passed out to grade 5 and 6 students(10-11 year olds) and lets not forget the endless lines of abortions on demand, on the whim on mothers at the 8 or 9 month mark of the pregnancy.

I have a different set of values that says these things are immoral, unethical and wrong. I guess I'm in the minority, I'll have to live with that.

[Renegade]

I have a different set of values that says these things are immoral, unethical and wrong. I guess I'm in the minority, I'll have to live with that.

No Mr Canada. You are not wrong because you have a different set of values. You are wrong because you seek to impose those values on eveyone else.

[CANADIEN]

I think I'm a very principled person who lives his life responsibly and properly. I have no problems living my life following rules. Seems the secular people are too lazy to want to have to follow rules and want to have rampant homosexuality, drugs and alcohol abuse, open sexual relations, open drug use in parks in front of our kids, condoms passed out to grade 5 and 6 students(10-11 year olds) and lets not forget the endless lines of abortions on demand, on the whim on mothers at the 8 or 9 month mark of the pregnancy.

I have a different set of values that says these things are immoral, unethical and wrong. I guess I'm in the minority, I'll have to live with that.

I gotta laugh when I read the words "rampant homosexuality". And seriously, who here is advocating drug and alcohol abuse, open drug use in front of kids, or passing condoms to 10-11 year old?

Response: virtually nobody.

And BTW, do yourself a favour and don't try the "socialist secularist" on me. I am a Christian, including (unlike you) understanding that God's message is about love for all.

Edited January 10, 2009 by CANADIEN

[Mr.Canada]

I gotta laugh when I read the words "rampant homosexuality". And seriously, who here is advocating drug and alcohol abuse, open drug use in front of kids, or passing condoms to 10-11 year old?

Response: virtually nobody.

And BTW, do yourself a favour and don't try the "socialist secularist" on me. I am a Christian, including (unlike you) understanding that God's message is about love for all.

God has no love for homosexual sex. God has no love for abortion which is the slaughter of babies.

You think Jesus would partake in abortions do you?

[Mr.Canada]

No Mr Canada. You are not wrong because you have a different set of values. You are wrong because you seek to impose those values on eveyone else.

I do no such thing. I post my opinions just like everyone else does here. If my words are so powerful as to sway peoples opinion so easily perhaps their position wasn't as strong as they once thought.

[CANADIEN]

You think Jesus would partake in abortions do you?

:lol: