Should Canadian tax payers be funding abortion?

[Shady]

None of that is relevant. Whether or not the fetus is alive does not prove that it is a human life.

LOL. Of course it's relevant. And according to the laws of biogenesis, humans can only produce humans. It's human life. I didn't know there were still people around actually disputing that. There's that damn science getting in the way of things again!

*edit*

Are there any other flat-earthers in the forum? Besides Smallc. Just wondering.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Shady

[Smallc]

LOL. Of course it's relevant. And according to the laws of biogenesis, humans can only produce humans. It's human life.

It is not yet a fully formed human. It has the potential to become one.

[Shady]

It is not yet a fully formed human. It has the potential to become one.

A born baby at say 5 or 6 months isn't "fully formed" either. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

[Smallc]

A born baby at say 5 or 6 months isn't "fully formed" either. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

But then it's been born, and is surviving. Until then, it is simply inside of another being, feeding off of that being. It is only because of our technology that such things are possible, so it isn't natural.

[ToadBrother]

That is scientific evidence.

What you described could be explained by autonomic functions. The science involved would be determining what was being produced by lower brain stem and localized nerve activity. I mean, Terri Schiavo could yawn and blink and she had no cortical functions (or cerebral cortex) at all.

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

Which doesn't really answer the question.

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!

You say that, and yet what you provided ain't it. If you wish to provide citations to peer reviewed and primary literature on the topic, then please do so. You know, actual science, as opposed to rhetorical arguments. You will find me profoundly unswayed by "gee whiz" arguments.

[ToadBrother]

A born baby at say 5 or 6 months isn't "fully formed" either. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

With modern medicine a fetus can be viable earlier, but then again, through modern medicine, someone lacking pretty much all higher functions and basically being a brain stem with enough capacity to co-ordinate autonomic functions can live for some time. You're confusing issues here.

[Bonam]

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.

Whether abortion is moral or not is not a question of science. The field of ethics is not a part of science.

Whether a fetus is a "person" or not, "fully formed" or not, is irrelevant.

The only rational argument comes from the absolute value of a human's control over their own life. An individual should not be forced to sacrifice their life or their freedom in that life for the sake of another individual. A fetus is dependent on the mother. For the fetus to be carried to term, the mother must make the choice to sacrifice many freedoms in her life for the sake of the fetus. That choice must be voluntary, it cannot be forced upon the mother by society.

The notion that a mother should be forced by society to carry a fetus to term is equivalent to saying that an individual must be a slave to the needs of another being, enforced by the collective.

[Born Free]

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 never ignore science. Yours is out of touch. However, I can assure you that the issue over abortion has absolutely nothing to do with science.

[Born Free]

A born baby at say 5 or 6 months isn't "fully formed" either. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

You should have used your flat earth argument here....

[Mr.Canada]

Whether abortion is moral or not is not a question of science. The field of ethics is not a part of science.

Whether a fetus is a "person" or not, "fully formed" or not, is irrelevant.

The only rational argument comes from the absolute value of a human's control over their own life. An individual should not be forced to sacrifice their life or their freedom in that life for the sake of another individual. A fetus is dependent on the mother. For the fetus to be carried to term, the mother must make the choice to sacrifice many freedoms in her life for the sake of the fetus. That choice must be voluntary, it cannot be forced upon the mother by society.

The notion that a mother should be forced by society to carry a fetus to term is equivalent to saying that an individual must be a slave to the needs of another being, enforced by the collective.

So the only time that morality or ethics comes into the equation is when Canada is forced to boost social spending or give bailouts or "force" someone to live as the "wrong" sex right? Then it's suddenly very important to consider the morality and ethics of a situation not to mention the feelings. Since it's only an unborn child the feelings no longer matter and science is king.

Socialists love to preach and they also love to pick and choose the rules to the game then label the opposing side as being monsters. You can't trick us any longer we're onto you.

On the other side of the coin, womens rights are so important when choosing what they do with their own bodies but not important enough to stop the forced use of the burka. I'm waiting for the socialists to stand up for womens rights in that area but I guess they won't because it's not a sexy enough issue for them.

[Guest TrueMetis]

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.

That's an arguement from emotion it has nothing to do with science... And If that's all it takes for you to be against killing something than I guess your against all wars right? I mean everyone killed in any war used to be exactly like that.

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?

A chimp? It would look exactly the same as a human at that stage.

[Bonam]

So the only time that morality or ethics comes into the equation is when Canada is forced to boost social spending or give bailouts or "force" someone to live as the "wrong" sex right? Then it's suddenly very important to consider the morality and ethics of a situation not to mention the feelings. Since it's only an unborn child the feelings no longer matter and science is king.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. Care to rephrase?

Socialists love to preach and they also love to pick and choose the rules to the game then label the opposing side as being monsters. You can't trick us any longer we're onto you.

If you're referring to me, it should be obvious that I'm about as far away from a socialist as it is possible to get.

[Mr.Canada]

Not sure what you're trying to say here. Care to rephrase?

Sure. The socialist plays what is known as a shell game. It picks and choose which opportunities to slam theirs fists and proclaim science to be king devoid of morals and ethics. Then other times the science doesn't matter and it's all about morals and ethics. They like to play both sides of the same coin and feel Canadians are stupid enough to let them. Maybe we are.

No, I wasn't talking about you just the diseased mind of the socialist in general. I often go off on strange monologues with no general direction with the only constant being my dislike for almost anything not right wing.

[Born Free]

No, I wasn't talking about you just the diseased mind of the socialist in general. I often go off on strange monologues with no general direction with the only constant being my dislike for almost anything not right wing.

Harper is a socialist at heart.

[Bonam]

Sure. The socialist plays what is known as a shell game. It picks and choose which opportunities to slam theirs fists and proclaim science to be king devoid of morals and ethics. Then other times the science doesn't matter and it's all about morals and ethics. They like to play both sides of the same coin and feel Canadians are stupid enough to let them. Maybe we are.

No, I wasn't talking about you just the diseased mind of the socialist in general. I often go off on strange monologues with no general direction with the only constant being my dislike for almost anything not right wing.

Ok that's nice and all but what does it have to do with my post, which you quoted and were apparently replying to?

[ToadBrother]

Sure. The socialist plays what is known as a shell game. It picks and choose which opportunities to slam theirs fists and proclaim science to be king devoid of morals and ethics. Then other times the science doesn't matter and it's all about morals and ethics. They like to play both sides of the same coin and feel Canadians are stupid enough to let them. Maybe we are.

This is bizarre and absurd. Does anybody ask "Is a hammer moral". Science is a tool. It is fundamentally a-moral. Other than perhaps from the perspective of fields like psychology, neurology and evolutionary behavioralism, science really isn't about moral or immoral. It's how science is applied. Science can only answer concrete questions. Unfortunately in debates like abortion, there is a highly subjective element. Trying to claim "science shows abortion is evil" is ridiculous, as ridiculous as showing "science shows dropping a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima was good."

No, I wasn't talking about you just the diseased mind of the socialist in general. I often go off on strange monologues with no general direction with the only constant being my dislike for almost anything not right wing.

And that's why you're an idiot.

[ToadBrother]

If you're referring to me, it should be obvious that I'm about as far away from a socialist as it is possible to get.

Mr. C's definition of "socialist" has nothing to do with economic models and everything to do with "Doesn't agree with me."

[mikemac]

"$80 million a year figure is probably an underestimate of how much taxpayers spend on medically unnecessary abortions." (Source)

A November 2009 poll by Environics Research Group for Life Canada found that:

* 18 percent of those polled said women should pay for abortions themselves or have them funded by private insurers, not public funds.

* 49 percent said public funds should be used for abortions only in emergency situations such as rape, incest or threat to the mother’s life.

* In total, 67 percent oppose public funding of most or all abortions.

This 67 percent is close to the figure for those who want some legal protection for the unborn, which is 66 percent.

This is a quote from a girl in another forum;

Anyway, people, I see 3 choices: birthing, adoption, or abortion. Why kill when you can always give away?

[Bonam]

Anyway, people, I see 3 choices: birthing, adoption, or abortion. Why kill when you can always give away?

This is incorrect. To give your baby up for adoption, you must first go through "birthing". Thus adoption and birthing are not two separate choices, one is necessary before the other can happen.

Unless they have some procedure where they can transplant an embryo/fetus from one woman's womb to another, thus facilitating a sort of "prenatal adoption".

[Mr.Canada]

And that's why you're an idiot.

Ahhh name calling...the last bastion of a lost argument.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Anyway, people, I see 3 choices: birthing, adoption, or abortion. Why kill when you can always give away?

Because there are more kids than willing parents?

[bush_cheney2004]

Because there are more kids than willing parents?

Yea...that's a good reason....except in China.

[Dave_ON]

Yea...that's a good reason....except in China.

Come on BC don't get bjre started...

[Dave_ON]

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.

Your argument is comparing apples to oranges, unless one is attempting to kill themselves by walking off a curb. Either way you can't very well compare an accident with intentionally, continually, and knowingly harming your body.

Be that as it may, my central point remains the same. Regardless of whether we like/dislike agree/disagree with what/who is covered, it/they are covered all the same. So maybe you don't think abortion should be covered, well that's just ducky; until the laws are changed all you can do is whine about it. Changing the law might be a sight easier than for me to convince society in general that prevention through healthy living is the cheapest way to cut our rising health care costs.

[M.Dancer]

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

And they are both elective, mostly non essential surgery.