Abortion Reform Poll

[White Doors]

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!

Seems we are having a healthy debate about it right here - your not wanting us to have one, notwithstanding...

oopsie

[ToadBrother]

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?

Can you actually provide a citation for this?

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.

You go on about rape, and then accuse me of non sequiturs? I'm asking you for hard evidence here, and if you can't provide it, you sure can't go to the next step with me and demand that I support you.

So get to work. You have two jobs here; 1. show where Morgantaler said he performed abortions at nine months and 2) provide the statistics for the number of late-term abortions and the reasons for them. If those reasons are largely medical then I'd say you don't have a case.

[Progressive Tory]

Seems we are having a healthy debate about it right here - your not wanting us to have one, notwithstanding...

oopsie

I've made my point on the abortion issue, and am now only debating the need to have a debate. Not sure how healthy it is, but I had yogurt for lunch; just before I went out and hugged a tree; so I'm OK.

I would also like a citation of the European factor though, debatably speaking. I had always thought they were more liberal than we were. Purely for educational purposes of course.

[White Doors]

Can you actually provide a citation for this?

You go on about rape, and then accuse me of non sequiturs? I'm asking you for hard evidence here, and if you can't provide it, you sure can't go to the next step with me and demand that I support you.

So get to work. You have two jobs here; 1. show where Morgantaler said he performed abortions at nine months and 2) provide the statistics for the number of late-term abortions and the reasons for them. If those reasons are largely medical then I'd say you don't have a case.

Obviously you are having comprehension issues. I cited rape only as an example. wrong is wrong wether it is occuring or not. The absence of crime does not give reason to have laws banning certain behaviours, including rape, breaking and entering etc etc.

As for Morgentaler I erred, he is actually against them after 24 weeks.

Morgentaler said he has concerns about late-term abortions.

"We don't abort babies, we want to abort fetuses before they become babies," Morgentaler said from his Toronto clinic.

"Around 24 weeks I have ethical problems doing that."

Morgentaler said the late-term abortions are mainly performed on women who have learned of severe birth defects during tests performed late in pregnancy and on teenage girls who have tried to hide their pregnancy.

"What we do at our clinics is if we have a problem like that we usually council the woman to continue the pregnancy and put it up for adoption if she is unable to care for it," he said.

But I can think you can take a Dr's word for it that there is a demand for late term abortions among teenaged girls.

[White Doors]

I've made my point on the abortion issue, and am now only debating the need to have a debate. Not sure how healthy it is, but I had yogurt for lunch; just before I went out and hugged a tree; so I'm OK.

I would also like a citation of the European factor though, debatably speaking. I had always thought they were more liberal than we were. Purely for educational purposes of course.

Common fact. You want more information, do you own research.

Well, I happened to come across some so here you are:

British abortion laws are famously permissive. Yet even in Britain, late abortion must be medically certified as necessary to protect the health of the mother. Last year, a British court convicted and sentenced a woman who had procured a 7-month abortion without medical permission.

Denmark, France and Norway ban abortion after 12 weeks; Germany, Austria and Belgium after 14 weeks; Sweden after 18 weeks.

Even America’s famous Roe v. Wade decision, which created a near-absolute constitutional right to abortion, draws a line at the moment at which a foetus becomes “viable.” After 24 weeks, the Supreme Court has said, governments may impose at least some restrictions on abortion. In 2007, the Court upheld the constitutionality of one such restriction: a ban on the abortion procedure known as “partial-birth abortion.” In a partial-birth abortion, the head of the foetus is pulled out of the mother’s body, then crushed. The body of the foetus is then carved and extracted in pieces.

Late-term abortions remain legal in Canada. When it was reported that no Canadian doctor would perform them, the Quebec government acted to create a new clinic in Montreal specifically for this purpose.

Edited January 5, 2009 by White Doors

[ToadBrother]

Common fact. You want more information, do you own research.

In other words you are making statements which you can't back up. It's not my job to prove your claims, it's your job, and the fact that you won't suggests to me that you can't, and you're either just repeating B.S. that someone else told you, or potentially, you're making it up yourself.

[ToadBrother]

Obviously you are having comprehension issues. I cited rape only as an example.

An example of what?

wrong is wrong wether it is occuring or not. The absence of crime does not give reason to have laws banning certain behaviours, including rape, breaking and entering etc etc.

Yes, well, killing pink unicorns and using their bladders for bagpipes is wrong too.

As for Morgentaler I erred, he is actually against them after 24 weeks.

But I can think you can take a Dr's word for it that there is a demand for late term abortions among teenaged girls.

What doctors? I asked for statistics here, not for more evidence so meaningless that it can't even be called anecdotal.

[White Doors]

In other words you are making statements which you can't back up. It's not my job to prove your claims, it's your job, and the fact that you won't suggests to me that you can't, and you're either just repeating B.S. that someone else told you, or potentially, you're making it up yourself.

wrong on all counts

[White Doors]

An example of what?

Yes, well, killing pink unicorns and using their bladders for bagpipes is wrong too.

What doctors? I asked for statistics here, not for more evidence so meaningless that it can't even be called anecdotal.

Morgantaler. You have to actualyl read my posts if we are to try and have an intelligent conversation, n'est pas?

[ToadBrother]

wrong on all counts

Then back them up, because otherwise the default position on claims is that they're not true.

[White Doors]

Then back them up, because otherwise the default position on claims is that they're not true.

^^^^^^^

I did.

[Progressive Tory]

Common fact. You want more information, do you own research.

Well, I happened to come across some so here you are:

You're right. http://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/lexeuro.htm

And: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm

However, if you look at the statistics for the gestational period of abortions in Canada you will see that abortions performed after 20 weeks is very minimal, with most taking place within the first three months.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:FyHflE...t=clnk&cd=1

Why lookey here, we now have us a debate. However, we are debating here, not in the House of Commons, where the issue should be closed and will be as per Stephen Harper.

Edited January 5, 2009 by Progressive Tory

[White Doors]

You're right. http://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/lexeuro.htm

And: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm

However, if you look at the statistics for the gestational period of abortions in Canada you will see that abortions performed after 20 weeks is very minimal, with most taking place within the first three months.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:FyHflE...t=clnk&cd=1

Why lookey here, we now have us a debate. However, we are debating here, not in the House of Commons, where the issue should be closed and will be as per Stephen Harper.

Yes, I am thankful they are rare. My point is that for late term abortion where there is no medical emergency there should be none, not 'rare'. I don;t think a teenager who 'hid' a pregnancy for 6 months should be able to get an abortion at that time because having a baby would be 'inconvenient'.

[Mr.Canada]

I support a woman's right to choose up to say 3 months or maybe even 4 month of gestation.

If she hasn't decided what to do by then, then she is to carry the baby to term at that time barring life threatening medical emergencies. At that time, the fetus would have a right to life too. I think the majority of Canadians would support this.

This is pretty much how it is in most European countries.

I have agreed with the exact same thing yet everyone goes wild when I say it. I'm for abortion reform not making it illegal again. My position is a bit further from this but we must meet in the middle of what people like me want and no regulations. This is a happy medium.

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.

If abortion is using male tax dollars then men get a say or women should fund it themselves then.

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.

I agree fully. The problem is that when these people hear you say that limits are needed they automatically say you are against womens rights and anti-abortion. This is childish behavior imo.

Edited January 6, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[Molly]

"I don't think a theenager who 'hid' a pregnancy for 6 months should be able to get an abortion at that time because having a baby would be 'inconvienient'. "

One must wonder about the intellect, maturity, state of mind and/or social conditions of someone who could/would hide pregnancy for that long. That reeks of things other than moral decay.

[White Doors]

"I don't think a theenager who 'hid' a pregnancy for 6 months should be able to get an abortion at that time because having a baby would be 'inconvienient'. "

One must wonder about the intellect, maturity, state of mind and/or social conditions of someone who could/would hide pregnancy for that long. That reeks of things other than moral decay.

I agree but my point is those things alone are not good enough reasons to abort a 6 month old fetus.

In my humble opinion.

[punked]

I agree but my point is those things alone are not good enough reasons to abort a 6 month old fetus.

In my humble opinion.

A survey done of late term abortions in the US found 20% of women did not even know abortion was an option maybe to prevent this kind of thing we should educate women on the fact it is an option

[White Doors]

A survey done of late term abortions in the US found 20% of women did not even know abortion was an option maybe to prevent this kind of thing we should educate women on the fact it is an option

Agreed but that will not solve all of the issues. After 6 months 'not knowing' isn;t good enough and therefore they have forfeited their right to 'choose'. Under my legislation they have all the right in the world to choose, up to 20 weeks then their inaction is taken to mean that they choose to have the baby.

[Molly]

I see. Punish the defenseless.

[White Doors]

I see. Punish the defenseless.

Sorry?

what?

If you are making that comment in reference to perhaps the teenagers hiding a pregnancy for 6 months and then forcing them to bring the baby to term as punishment? Do you not see how deliciously ironic that is?

I mean, can you get anymore defenceless (c - we spell in Canadian here btw) than a fetus is a womb?

You run out of depth in an area you obviously have not put much thought in to - and this is all you got?

punish the defenceless? lol

wow, that is so weak.

Edited January 5, 2009 by White Doors

[Progressive Tory]

Agreed but that will not solve all of the issues. After 6 months 'not knowing' isn;t good enough and therefore they have forfeited their right to 'choose'. Under my legislation they have all the right in the world to choose, up to 20 weeks then their inaction is taken to mean that they choose to have the baby.

Not knowing after six months I'm sure is very rare. However, by the table of statistics, less than one percent of abortions are performed after 20 weeks and we don't know how many of them were because the mother's health was in peril. From one perspective, some might say that any woman who doesn't know she's pregnant at six months, probably shouldn't be pro-creating, so should be allowed an abortion. Naturally I don't really feel that way, but am a fan of irreverant humour, so had to say it.

The comment that if it 'ain't broke', applies and less than one percent, shouldn't warrant another Parliamentary debate or new legislation.

[White Doors]

Not knowing after six months I'm sure is very rare. However, by the table of statistics, less than one percent of abortions are performed after 20 weeks and we don't know how many of them were because the mother's health was in peril. From one perspective, some might say that any woman who doesn't know she's pregnant at six months, probably shouldn't be pro-creating, so should be allowed an abortion. Naturally I don't really feel that way, but am a fan of irreverant humour, so had to say it.

The comment that if it 'ain't broke', applies and less than one percent, shouldn't warrant another Parliamentary debate or new legislation.

It is broke in my opinion. 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. I like to live in a country with humane laws where viable fetus' can be protected. Like I said before, even if there weren't any kidnappings in our society, I should think we would still want a law that said kidnapping was illegal.

[Progressive Tory]

It is broke in my opinion. 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. I like to live in a country with humane laws where viable fetus' can be protected. Like I said before, even if there weren't any kidnappings in our society, I should think we would still want a law that said kidnapping was illegal.

If there were no kidnappings, why would we need the law? OK, that's going nowhere.

However, do we really need to rehash a debate that will take time and resources away from more important issues, when it will probably end up the same, or at the very least change the law for less than 1% of abortions. It only polarizes Canadians and empowers radicals from both sides of the issue. Let it go. No politician is going to touch this right now.

[punked]

Not knowing after six months I'm sure is very rare. However, by the table of statistics, less than one percent of abortions are performed after 20 weeks and we don't know how many of them were because the mother's health was in peril. From one perspective, some might say that any woman who doesn't know she's pregnant at six months, probably shouldn't be pro-creating, so should be allowed an abortion. Naturally I don't really feel that way, but am a fan of irreverant humour, so had to say it.

The comment that if it 'ain't broke', applies and less than one percent, shouldn't warrant another Parliamentary debate or new legislation.

A survey in the US of Late Term abortions shows around 15% were due to health problems.

[ToadBrother]

It is broke in my opinion. 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. I like to live in a country with humane laws where viable fetus' can be protected. Like I said before, even if there weren't any kidnappings in our society, I should think we would still want a law that said kidnapping was illegal.

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?