Should Canadian tax payers be funding abortion?

[dizzy]

Irrelevant to the question of abortion. No law can/should require the sharing of ones body with anyone or anything else. In all other circumstances, killing to defend ones own physical integrity is perfectly acceptable, so if denying occupancy of ones uterus results in death of a living human occupier, so be it.

Life/not life is not meaningful to ones right to refuse to host it.

Well said, Molly.

[Bonam]

Irrelevant to the question of abortion. No law can/should require the sharing of ones body with anyone or anything else. In all other circumstances, killing to defend ones own physical integrity is perfectly acceptable, so if denying occupancy of ones uterus results in death of a living human occupier, so be it.

Life/not life is not meaningful to ones right to refuse to host it.

Indeed, that is the core of the issue and I agree with you there. A mother should not be forced to sacrifice her life or liberty for the sake of another entity, be it separate or not, human or not. This is why I keep saying that trying to determine whether a fetus is a "separate entity" or not, whether it is a "person" or not, all of this is irrelevant and arbitrary. What matters is precisely what you have said.

[bush_cheney2004]

But not in all of them.

And since you stand by and let "infanticide" occur, you are utterly complicit. Good job.

Thank you, as that is my intent. If you can kill the babies, then I can destroy entire cities! (And then go buy a pizza.)

[bush_cheney2004]

.....This is why I keep saying that trying to determine whether a fetus is a "separate entity" or not, whether it is a "person" or not, all of this is irrelevant and arbitrary. What matters is precisely what you have said.

Of course it is all arbitrary, my original point as well. What we have is a legal and social construct that enjoys the largest political support, and for economic reasons, shall remain so. But this wasn't always the case, and is not the position of all uterus owners.

[Shady]

This has nothing to do with the US Constitution...fetal homicide laws are common in many US states.

Canada side steps the issue entirely by declaring that a person has the attribute of having been born alive. Causing the death of a 35 week old fetus in Canada is not a crime in and of itself.

You'll find that most pro-abortionists don't base their opinions on actual science. Because when it comes to science, the evidence is indisputable. Instead they argue false notions of choice.

[bush_cheney2004]

You'll find that most pro-abortionists don't base their opinions on actual science. Because when it comes to science, the evidence is indisputable. Instead they argue false notions of choice.

Well, I do have to tip my hat to doctors in Quebec, who refuse to support such nonsense unless the health of the mother is at stake. Religion and science unite to say "C'est absolument impossible" after viability, so it's off to New York or Kansas for the dirty deed.

[wyly]

We've had universal health care long before abortion was legalized here in Canada. With the recent health care bill concerns in the US centered around tax payer funded abortion the question needs to be asked. Should there be tax payer funded abortion here in Canada?

if abortions shouldn't be funded by taxpayers then neither should churches be funded by taxpayers...

[cybercoma]

Given the posts of some people on this forum, I have to admit... I'm warming up to the idea of postpartum abortions.

[M.Dancer]

The solution is simple. If you don't believe in abortion, then organize to repeal the law that allows it. Until then, know that abortion is legal, so it should be free, accessible and widely available.

Breast implants are also legal, accessible and widely available. Should they also be free?

[M.Dancer]

According to many, it is. It's performed in a health facility.

So are nose jobs.

[M.Dancer]

if abortions shouldn't be funded by taxpayers then neither should churches be funded by taxpayers...

I don't follow the connection....how about if abortions shouldn't be funded than neither should film festivals.

[Dave_ON]

The fact of the matter is we have a universal system and as such procedures will be covered that we may or may not agree with. Should the tax payer have to pay for the treatment of a lung cancer patient who smoked for 30 years? How about liver issues for heavy drinkers? What about heart surgery for an obese person, or diabetes related care? Should people who are essentially responsible for their condition be covered as well?

As a person, who exercises regularly, eats nutritiously, doesn't smoke, and doesn't drink heavily I object to the above folks being covered. However, it's part of how our system works. Where do we draw the line and who is qualified to do so and on what criteria do we base the determination of qualifcations?

[dizzy]

Breast implants are also legal, accessible and widely available. Should they also be free?

No, breast implants are cosmetic. But vasectomies are fully covered.

[Born Free]

You'll find that most pro-abortionists don't base their opinions on actual science. Because when it comes to science, the evidence is indisputable. Instead they argue false notions of choice.

Pro-choicers dont need to argue. They sit back and chuckle at the anti-abortionists as they pontificate their self-righteous scientific declarations.

[Born Free]

As a person, who exercises regularly, eats nutritiously, doesn't smoke, and doesn't drink heavily I object to the above folks being covered.

Your objection is noted as is your desire for establishing a health care Star Chamber.

However, you shouldnt expect to be covered if you stupidly step off the curb without looking, get creamed by a cement truck and you end up recuperating in a hospital ward for 5 years.

[Shady]

Pro-choicers dont need to argue. They sit back and chuckle at the anti-abortionists as they pontificate their self-righteous scientific declarations.

That's ok. It's your right to continue to believe that the earth is flat, in which the sun revolves around.

The rest of us choose not to ignore science, and irrefutable scientific evidence. In fact, society has been trending towards the pro-life position for several years. It's only a matter of time before changes are made to the laws of the land.

[ToadBrother]

That's ok. It's your right to continue to believe that the earth is flat, in which the sun revolves around.

The rest of us choose not to ignore science, and irrefutable scientific evidence. In fact, society has been trending towards the pro-life position for several years. It's only a matter of time before changes are made to the laws of the land.

I'm fascinated by this claim. Could you please provide citations to peer reviewed and primary literature. Thanks in advance.

[Shady]

I'm fascinated by this claim. Could you please provide citations to peer reviewed and primary literature. Thanks in advance.

Literature regarding what?

[ToadBrother]

Literature regarding what?

You're the one that keeps talking about scientific evidence. If you don't actually have citations to peer reviewed or primary literature, then there's a distinct chance you don't know what you're talking about.

Here's a hint. Anti-abortion pamphlets and newspaper articles are not peer-reviewed or primary literature.

Now get to it. You've got some work to do.

Edited April 5, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Shady]

You're the one that keeps talking about scientific evidence. If you don't actually have citations to peer reviewed or primary literature, then there's a distinct chance you don't know what you're talking about.

Sure, I can provide some. But you really don't need peer reviewed literature to watch for yourself a 3D ultrasound of a 5 or 6 month unborn baby. A baby that sucks its thumbs, kicks, and moves around, smiles, blinks, breaths, and has a heartbeat that gets monitored and displayed on the screen. It's really quite incredible.

[ToadBrother]

Sure, I can provide some. But you really don't need peer reviewed literature to watch for yourself a 3D ultrasound of a 5 or 6 month unborn baby. A baby that sucks its thumbs, kicks, and moves around, smiles, blinks, breaths, and has a heartbeat that gets monitored and displayed on the screen. It's really quite incredible.

So you don't actually have any scientific evidence. You could have just said that. Arguments form "Wow, isn't that cool!" aren't scientific arguments.

Edited April 5, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Shady]

So you don't actually have any scientific evidence.

That is scientific evidence.

Who's heartbeat do you think is being monitored and displayed?

The doctor's?

But of course, there's tons of scientific research and evidence in written form if prefer that instead. Maybe you're just a bit confused because it's not an incorrect climate computer model!

[Smallc]

That is scientific evidence.

No, it's not.

[Shady]

No, it's not.

Yes it is. Again I'll ask. Who's heartbeat do you think is being monitored and displayed? Who's sucking it's thumb. Who's moving, smiling and breathing?

I had no idea you were a flat-earther.

[Smallc]

Yes it is. Again I'll ask. Who's heartbeat do you think is being monitored and displayed? Who's sucking it's thumb. Who's moving, smiling and breathing?

None of that is relevant. Whether or not the fetus is alive does not prove that it is a human life. At that point, it could be argued that it is simply a parasite.