Abortion Reform Poll

[Renegade]

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.

You have maintained that you have the absolute right to do what you want to your own body. I have maintained that your right to do what you want to your own body is limited by its effect on others. You can blow yourself up if you and only you are affected. You can't blow yourself up if you will take others with you.

If you agree that the govenment has the right to protect the public and thereby limit your actions, you should clearly see that the government would also extend that same power to protect the public to protecting the unborn child by limiting the actions of what you do with your own body.

[Molly]

The difference, Max, is that the folks on the MLW poll have spent at least a few moments thinking and talking about it. The folks polled by Angus Reid may not have spent any more time pondering than the time it took to enunciate answers to the poll.

[Renegade]

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?

No, Drea, the specfic issue we are arguing is the statement that "one has the absolute right to do what one wants with his own body". Blowing yourself up, spreading aids, are not permissable because it affects others beyond oneself. That's the point, isn't it?

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.

Sorta of like aborting affect unborn child's body and not jus the person's own.

Before you jump up and down, the point here is that the right to do what one wants with their own body is not absolute. Drea, if you believe that such a right was absolute, you should not have issue with people aborting at 9 months.

Edited January 6, 2009 by Renegade

[punked]

You have maintained that you have the absolute right to do what you want to your own body. I have maintained that your right to do what you want to your own body is limited by its effect on others. You can blow yourself up if you and only you are affected. You can't blow yourself up if you will take others with you.

If you agree that the govenment has the right to protect the public and thereby limit your actions, you should clearly see that the government would also extend that same power to protect the public to protecting the unborn child by limiting the actions of what you do with your own body.

Then you would agree the government has the right to take your kidney if it is to save anothers life?

[Molly]

That's a fair point, Renegade, but you must also concede that if someone is doing you harm, you are well within your rights to defend yourself, with deadly force, if necessary.

[blueblood]

Then you would agree the government has the right to take your kidney if it is to save anothers life?

Then you would agree that Robert Latimer had the right to end his daughter's life.

By denying the kidney, you are not directly ending a life, but with an abortion you are.

Through the threads, Renegade is right on this one.

Edited January 6, 2009 by blueblood

[Molly]

As a matter of fact... jailing him for 10 years makes a mockery of justice.

But that's another issue, too.

[punked]

Then you would agree that Robert Latimer had the right to end his daughter's life.

By denying the kidney, you are not directly ending a life, but with an abortion you are.

Through the threads, Renegade is right on this one.

So you think with 200 people dying every year in Canada due to organ donations being so low the government needs to make everyone become one right?

[Black Dog]

Mr Canada

Abortion is murder, end of story. Aborting a nine month old pregnancy may be legal in Canada but that doesn't make it not murder. To continue speaking with me prove to me that aborting a 9 month old baby isn't murder.

What's interesting is that you say this, yet also say that you don't want abortion banned, only limited to certain sets of circumstances. So are abortions that take place in these circumstances not murder or simply a form of murder that is acceptable to you?

Edited January 6, 2009 by Black Dog

[Renegade]

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?

I did not address specfics, however I would make exceptions for circumstances which changed with time. For example if as the pregnancy progressed there was increased threat to the mothers life, then abortion should be permtted at any time. I would not include rape or incest in these exceptions as those cirmcumstances are known up front. Simply put, if the mother is a victim of rape or incest and wants to abort she should have the same period to decide as anyone else.

The issue of a non-viable or mal-formed fetus is a different issue. It is a similar to a question of euthenasia. Yes I think there ought to be critiera by which living entities are euthanized to be humane to those beings, but that principle applies to both the pre-born and the post-born. So no, I don't think that the decision of aborting the pregnancy due to non-viable or mal-formed fetus should be left to the woman afer the decision period. If she aborts regardless, then yes she can plead the circumstances in a trial.

[Renegade]

That's a fair point, Renegade, but you must also concede that if someone is doing you harm, you are well within your rights to defend yourself, with deadly force, if necessary.

Absolutely I do.

[Renegade]

Then you would agree the government has the right to take your kidney if it is to save anothers life?

No, the government has no such right because you have entered into no contract and given no consent to have your kidney taken.

IMV, with pregnancy if you do not terminate the pregnancy within the allowed period, you are implicitly agreeing to a "contract" to host the pregnancy to term.

[blueblood]

So you think with 200 people dying every year in Canada due to organ donations being so low the government needs to make everyone become one right?

That's where stem cell research comes in. That and, there is no direct killing taking place. In theory by performing an abortion, you are killing someone. By not donating an organ, you are simply not donating an organ.

[punked]

That's where stem cell research comes in. That and, there is no direct killing taking place. In theory by performing an abortion, you are killing someone. By not donating an organ, you are simply not donating an organ.

By not donating an organ you are killing that person.

[Mr.Canada]

Mr Canada

What's interesting is that you say this, yet also say that you don't want abortion banned, only limited to certain sets of circumstances. So are abortions that take place in these circumstances not murder or simply a form of murder that is acceptable to you?

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.

[madmax]

The difference, Maxmadmax , is that the folks on the MLW poll have spent at least a few moments thinking and talking about it. The folks polled by Angus Reid may not have spent any more time pondering than the time it took to enunciate answers to the poll.

Please call me madmax.... commenting to Max could be an insult to all Max's in the world

Seriously, while there are "progressives" and Leftwingers on MLW, this is a very Centre, Centre Right and Right, forum with some very diverse views on many subjects. Considering this topic has a polarizing effect, the poll results suggest a moderate and mainstream position.

It is understandable why the CPC is not interested in going down this path.

[madmax]

Then you would agree that Robert Latimer had the right to end his daughter's life.

There's a gut check.

[madmax]

I still feel the same way and would disown any of my family that had one.

Better to keep you in the dark then.

[blueblood]

By not donating an organ you are killing that person.

Not directly your not. You are simply not donating an organ, somebody else can step up and donate one. As for the abortion from Renegades POV, you are in fact killing somebody directly, nobody can step up and take the baby's place.

[Molly]

LOL

My most humble apologies to the Max's of the world. (and Madmax, too.)

I've lurked in this place often enough to have a pretty good feel for the politics, and agree that on average, it leans well to the right of centre, and thus I must also admit that I'm a little surprised that it isn't more hard-line, too.

However, I wouldn't hold my opinions if I didn't think that sensible people would come to much the same conclusions if given all the information. When folks 'walk a mile' (or even a few feet, usually) they come up with answers that are quite different from their initial, top of the head statements.

[Mr.Canada]

Better to keep you in the dark then.

LOL. My family is conservative and responsible. We don't go around having sex like animals with whomever is not taken by the end of the night and still sober enough to walk. Keep dreaming.

[Renegade]

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.

I absolutely agree, however what I am saying is that the period of making "her choice" is not unlimited because that choice can impact another.

Do you agree that if a woman agrees to carry a pregnancy to term, that at some point the state can force her to honor that commitment?

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.

I suppose you need to ask youself that how many cases would you be willing to permit before you agreed such limitation of behaviour was necessary. IMV the fact that such behaviour is not just possible but has happened before is sufficient justitication to bring on the limitation:

Brenda Drummond, 29, of Carleton Place, Ontario tried to abort at 9 months on 28 May 1996 by introducing a pellet gun in her vagina and shooting her fetus in the head. Attempted murder charges against her were dropped since the Criminal Code of Canada definition of "human being" doesn't include fetuses. She was later sentenced to 30 months probation for "failing to provide the necessities of life" for having failed to report the injury immediately after her son's birth.

Fetal Rights

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.

Common sense and compassion may work in the 99.9% of the time. It is in the .1% of the time that it doesn't that we need the laws. It would be great if no one ever needed to be charged with such a law, however, part of the purpose of a law is deterence to prevent such an incident from occuring in the absence of common sense and compassion.

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.

Personally I don't argue this based upon religious beliefs. I don't have any ethical or moral issue with abortion. I do, as do each of us, religious or otherwise, have an issue with rights. In this case there is a clash of rights between the mother and the unborn child. We need to find the proper balance between maintaining both sets of rights.

Edited January 6, 2009 by Renegade

[WIP]

Not directly your not. You are simply not donating an organ, somebody else can step up and donate one. As for the abortion from Renegades POV, you are in fact killing somebody directly, nobody can step up and take the baby's place.

Well, let's refine the example a little then. Let's say you are a perfect match as a bone marrow donor, and the only positive match for the person in need. Are you obligated to be the donor, or not? And if not, doesn't that make you at least criminally negligent and responsible for the death of

the person with leukemia or some other blood disease?

[Molly]

Do you seriously believe that someone desperate enough to stick a pellet gun inside themselves and pull the trigger would be detered by the threat of mere jail?

[WIP]

I absolutely agree, however what I am saying is that the period of making "her choice" is not unlimited because that choice can impact another.

Do you agree that if a woman agrees to carry a pregnancy to term, that at some point the state can force her to honor that commitment?

It may, providing that there are no reasons to justify late termination, such as birth defects and health risks to the mother. From what I understand, most cases of women seeking third trimester abortions occur when these sorts of situations arise, so how much should a woman be willing to risk her life to have a baby? The last American stats I heard on the radio yesterday, were that approximately ten times as many women die from complications of delivery than from having a legal abortion.

Edited January 6, 2009 by WIP