Abortion Reform Poll

[punked]

F it being too hard it isn't right to tell a Women what she should do with her body. Period.

[Drea]

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

Do you have a citation that states women in "other" countries are monitored every month?

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.

Abortions from the 5th month onward on not "on demand"... in 1992 I was five months pregnant and stressed (single motherhood is kinda daunting to the first timer) and my doctor asked me if I wanted to go to Seattle for an abortion. I said no, I just needed someone to talk to about it -- and I never went back to him. I went to a woman doctor who could undertand that pregnancy is stressful.

Now, if midterm or late term abortions are so widespread in Canada, why would my doctor suggest sending me to Seattle? Why not Women's in Vancouver?

I do agree that abortion should be limited to 20 weeks with exceptions. For example the teen that hides her pregnancy because she is afraid of her parents...

[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.

[punked]

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

So if not tax dollars went to abortion you would be fine with it? Your tax dollars to Native Reserves should you be able to say what they do with their body too? How about your tax dollars going to the mens Hockey team you get to tell them what to do with their bodies? Let me get this straight because your tax dollars go to it it should be your right to make it illegal. NO you are wrong maybe it is in your right to try to remove tax funding with it but it is never your right to say what one should do with their bodies.

[Mr.Canada]

So if not tax dollars went to abortion you would be fine with it? Your tax dollars to Native Reserves should you be able to say what they do with their body too? How about your tax dollars going to the mens Hockey team you get to tell them what to do with their bodies? Let me get this straight because your tax dollars go to it it should be your right to make it illegal. NO you are wrong maybe it is in your right to try to remove tax funding with it but it is never your right to say what one should do with their bodies.

Nope but because my tax dollars fund it I should get a say. Simple as that.

[DrGreenthumb]

Nope but because my tax dollars fund it I should get a say. Simple as that.

so because my tax dollars fund your church, I should get to decide that taking communion should be criminalized, gotcha.

[Drea]

And MY tax dollars fund your church.

Do I get a say in what occurs in your church?

Mr. Canada I see that we pro-choicers have made an impact!

You've gone from:

All abortions should be illegal except in cases of rape, insest or the health (death) of the motherto:

Ok, I'll settle for restricted abortions.

Good for you!

Now... it's time to move on (now that's settled) to the tax exempt status of churches. Do you believe churches, synagogues and mosques should be tax exempt? Or do you think it's time they started paying into the tax coffers (therefor benefitting ALL Canadians, not just the ones who join the "club"?

Pony up Mr. Canada -- do you believe only certain Canadians should benefit from taxes or just a select few?

[punked]

Nope but because my tax dollars fund it I should get a say. Simple as that.

Like your church?

Edited January 6, 2009 by punked

[Progressive Tory]

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.

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

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.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha "If abortion is using male tax dollars then men get a say or women should fund it themselves then." Vasectomies are paid by women's tax dollars, I say we legislate that all men must have them, and only we get to decide at what time in their lives or after how many children. Their bodies, our tax dollars.

This argument defies logic. You are either for abortion or against it, and dictating a gestation period has nothing to do with the cost.

I'm glad to see you bending our way a bit though, Mr. Canada. We'll make a leftie out of you yet. 'C'mon...follow the light...we have donuts'

[Drea]

I'm glad to see you bending our way a bit though, Mr. Canada. We'll make a leftie out of you yet. 'C'mon...follow the light...we have donuts'

He does not know where he stands.. poor fella just wants to be a good christian and he has been brainwashed into thinking saving fetuses will get him points with the guy upstairs.

The children in Gaza though -- their lives aren't worth shit are they? One dead Israeli soldier is worth 300 dead Palestinian children. Funny that he (and those like him) are not in Gaza holding children behind them to save them from certain death. But a Canadian fetus must be worth, what, maybe a million dead Palestinians? When the total dead children reaches on million will you get on board with saving them Mr. Canada?

Or are their lives worth nothing in the eyes of your damndable god?

[Renegade]

F it being too hard it isn't right to tell a Women what she should do with her body. Period.

The right to do what one pleases with one's body isn't absolute. For example, if someone who has AIDS sleeps with others, they can be criminally charged. If someone has a communicable and serious desease, they can be quarantined, despite their right to do as they please.

In short the right to do what you want with your body is limited by it's impact on others.

[Progressive Tory]

He does not know where he stands.. poor fella just wants to be a good christian and he has been brainwashed into thinking saving fetuses will get him points with the guy upstairs.

The children in Gaza though -- their lives aren't worth shit are they? One dead Israeli soldier is worth 300 dead Palestinian children. Funny that he (and those like him) are not in Gaza holding children behind them to save them from certain death. But a Canadian fetus must be worth, what, maybe a million dead Palestinians? When the total dead children reaches on million will you get on board with saving them Mr. Canada?

Or are their lives worth nothing in the eyes of your damndable god?

I'm with you. Any pro-lifer who supports war is a hypocrite. I don't know Mr. Canada's views on war, so I can't judge him. Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza...babies being killed everyday in legalized murder. I suggest he turns his attentions to that.

[Mr.Canada]

And MY tax dollars fund your church.

Do I get a say in what occurs in your church?

All religions have the same tax exemption, not just Christianity.

Mr. Canada I see that we pro-choicers have made an impact!

You've gone from:

All abortions should be illegal except in cases of rape, insest or the health (death) of the motherto:

Ok, I'll settle for restricted abortions.

Good for you!

I don't agree with abortion whatsoever but in a country as diverse and wonderful as Canada the laws are not to be based on any one religions views, it should be a decision reached by all of its citizens. So instead of what you quoted me as saying, which I thought was a compromise btw, I've shifted slightly to say we need to put some sort of limitations and regulations on it. 20 weeks or from the time brain activity is present seems reasonable.

Now... it's time to move on (now that's settled) to the tax exempt status of churches. Do you believe churches, synagogues and mosques should be tax exempt? Or do you think it's time they started paying into the tax coffers (therefor benefitting ALL Canadians, not just the ones who join the "club"?

Pony up Mr. Canada -- do you believe only certain Canadians should benefit from taxes or just a select few?

Religious groups play an important role for the majority of Canadians and their status should remain as they are.

By that rationale then natives should start paying taxes as well. But that's for another topic.

[punked]

The right to do what one pleases with one's body isn't absolute. For example, if someone who has AIDS sleeps with others, they can be criminally charged. If someone has a communicable and serious desease, they can be quarantined, despite their right to do as they please.

In short the right to do what you want with your body is limited by it's impact on others.

No the right to ones body is absolute. If someone can only live if they are attached to me the government has not right to tell me that my should be used for this purpose. The right to ones body is absolute.

Ie. The government can not demand that I donate a Kidney even if it is to saves someones life.

Edited January 6, 2009 by punked

[Renegade]

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.

People "go wild" because your explaination defies logic. You have stated that abortion is murder, yet are somehow willing to "compromise" your position so that murder is permitted within the first three months. If you truly believed that abortion = murder, why compromise as you betray your principles if you do.

Edited January 6, 2009 by Renegade

[punked]

Religious groups play an important role for the majority of Canadians and their status should remain as they are.

33% of people in Canada attend Church once a month or more. That means 67% do not. Tell me about this majority. Just like your pro-life majority right?

[Renegade]

No the right to ones body is absolute. If someone can only live if they are attached to me the government has not right to tell me that my should be used for this purpose. The right to ones body is absolute.

So then, do you think the government has no right to quarantine you if you have SARS? Do you think that you have the right to strap on a bomb and blow yourself up in a crowed public space? Why not, aferall it is your body?

Ie. The government can not demand that I donate a Kidney even if it is to saves someones life.

I agree, however if you agree to donate your kidney, and sometime after that, change your mind, the government can specifiy at what point your decision is irrevokable and enforce the "contract".

Edited January 6, 2009 by Renegade

[M.Dancer]

So then, do you think the government has no right to quarantine you if you have SARS? Do you think that you have the right to strap on a bomb and blow yourself up in a crowed public space? Why not, aferall it is your body?

Indeed....apparently you don';t have the right to have sex with someone if you have aids and don't tell them...

[punked]

So then, do you think the government has no right to quarantine you if you have SARS? Do you think that you have the right to strap on a bomb and blow yourself up in a crowed public space? Why not, aferall it is your body?

How is blowing myself up in public have to do the free to no legislate against my right to my body? How does the government quarantining me have to do my right to say what happens with in and too my body. Yes the government has a right to protect the public no one is arguing that. They can not take my organs with out my permission for the public good though. You are arguing about freedom to do anything I am saying with my body I should be free to decide what happens to it. If I have SARS the government can not kill and burn my body for the public good.

[punked]

Indeed....apparently you don';t have the right to have sex with someone if you have aids and don't tell them...

But if you do tell and they deiced what is done to their body is their business it is legal. You have no right to do damage to others bodies becuase only they have that right.

[Drea]

So then, do you think the government has no right to quarantine you if you have SARS? Do you think that you have the right to strap on a bomb and blow yourself up in a crowed public space? Why not, aferall it is your body?

Ridiculous!

How do you go from aborting a fetus ... all the way to ... strapping on a bomb?

The two issues cannot be likened to one another. One kills living breathing human beings... the other kills a fetus.

And haven't we kinda already determined that 20 weeks (when brain activity begins apparently) is reasonable?

And Dancer, geeeez... as if spreading AIDS has anything to do with abortion...

You two are just silly and arguing for the sake of it. You all know that giving someone AIDS or strapping on a bomb affect other people's bodies, not just a person's own.

[Progressive Tory]

The right to do what one pleases with one's body isn't absolute. For example, if someone who has AIDS sleeps with others, they can be criminally charged. If someone has a communicable and serious desease, they can be quarantined, despite their right to do as they please.

In short the right to do what you want with your body is limited by it's impact on others.

Good point. However, abortion is not a disease, and cannot be spread. I support education, not legislation. We could argue that a man can have a vasectomy despite it's impact on his family, with or without consent from his wife, girlfriend, whatever.

Since it's the woman who must carry the child and ultimately be responsible for it's future, even if the child is being adopted, it's still her say. Her responsibility, her body, her choice.

The other factor that we overlooked is the statistics I presented a few pages back that show that less than 1% of Canadian women are having late term abortions. There is no subsequent data for that less than 1%, but I assume most of those were because of the mother's life being in danger.

Someone else, Whitedoor I believe, said that even if there were no kidnappings he would still want a law forbidding them. With that logic the fact that there were no kidnappings despite the absence of a law, shows that people know that it is wrong so police themselves. That's Eutopa, I know.

However, given that women are not having late term abortions on a whim, we need to be given credit for having common sense and compassion. It is the churches, parents, families, schools, whatever who guide us in our lives. Some of it sticks. Our government has no right to legislate their version of morality. And guess what? They don't and yet we're not all running around with knives in our bellies. Go figure.

Some laws are born of necessity. This one isn't.

If your religous beliefs do not permit you to support any abortion, then I respect that. However, not everyone shares your beliefs and you need to respect that.

[Molly]

More to the point, there is even, now, a limited right for the state to extract your blood or other DNA sample if you are sufficiently criminal. (That'a a gift, because the other samples offered don't wash.)

Everyone has the right not to have their body claimed and used by other people. The death of 'someone else' (if you concede that a 'someone else' even exists) is the unfortunate side effect of disallowing them first claim, occupancy and use of a womans body.

Renegade, I must ask... I assumed that you would make the usual exceptions to your time limit- rape, incest, extreme risk for the mother, non-viable or mal-formed fetus.... Am I to understand that you would not, and that such issues should only be treated as mitigating circumstances in a trial?

[daniel]

... using male tax dollars then ...

I think you've just discovered the solution to any future budgetary problems. Just put male tax dollars together with female tax dollars and we begat future generations of tax dollars.

[madmax]

2008 Poll showing 45 per cent of respondents believe abortion should be permitted in all cases,

What I find interesting about the Angus Reid Poll and the MLW poll is that on this forum the number of people supporting the above position is higher by 12% currently sitting at 57%.