Should Canadian tax payers be funding abortion?

[Bonam]

...so it's a wash when comparisons are made to fetal or infant survival. Medical technology and skills make both possible. Lacking this, we are left with natural childbirth after zero neo-natal care or intervention. The entire "abortion rights" movement is flawed by an utter dependence on technology and another's labor.

The same flaw applies to providing any health care in general. Personally, I believe that health care is not and cannot be a right, since it is something that is provided by the labor of others. The only thing that can be a right, in my opinion, is something that every individual intrinsically has. That is, they have the right not to be deprived of their life, liberty, or the fruits of their labour. I don't think anything else can really be a right.

However, in Canada, the prevalent view is that health care is a "right". As such, it assumes the existence and availability of certain health care personnel and facilities. Thus, something requiring the labor of others and the use of facilities/technology clearly can still be considered a "right" in Canada, and thus this is not an argument against abortion also being a "right".

[bush_cheney2004]

...However, in Canada, the prevalent view is that health care is a "right". As such, it assumes the existence and availability of certain health care personnel and facilities. Thus, something requiring the labor of others and the use of facilities/technology clearly can still be considered a "right" in Canada, and thus this is not an argument against abortion also being a "right".

That may be the view, but health care is most certainly not a right, not even in Canada. The CHA makes this pretty clear. Health care in Canada does not rise to the status of enumerated rights or even Charter politics "rights".

We agree that abortion is certainly not a natural right.

[Bonam]

That may be the view, but health care is most certainly not a right, not even in Canada. The CHA makes this pretty clear. Health care in Canada does not rise to the status of enumerated rights or even Charter politics "rights".

We agree that abortion is certainly not a natural right.

Well, I would certainly not advocate for abortion being any higher on a list of "rights" than health care. I honestly don't know whether health care is considered a "right" in Canada in any meaningful legal sense or not and don't care to do the research to find out. However, the fact remains that health care is provided to Canadians regardless of their own ability to contribute towards paying for health care. The provision of this health care involves both the use of the labour of others and the use of facilities and technologies. As such, abortion also requiring these things is not an argument for not providing the same kind of access to abortion in Canada as to health care.

Edited April 4, 2010 by Bonam

[bush_cheney2004]

.... The provision of this health care involves both the use of the labour of others and the use of facilities and technologies. As such, abortion also requiring these things is not an argument for not providing the same kind of access to abortion in Canada as to health care.

....mostly...except in Quebec and several other places, where access is denied because of the availability of facilities and professionals and/or their outright refusal to perform third-trimester abortions. Quebec sends these kind of abortions to the United States.

[Bonam]

....mostly...except in Quebec and several other places, where access is denied because of the availability of facilities and professionals and/or their outright refusal to perform third-trimester abortions. Quebec sends these kind of abortions to the United States.

Just as they at times do with some other types of procedures, when performing them in Canada is not practical. I don't see a meaningful difference between abortion and health care in this regard either.

Edited April 4, 2010 by Bonam

[bush_cheney2004]

Just as they at times do with some other types of procedures, when performing them in Canada is not practical. I don't see a meaningful difference between abortion and health care in this regard either.

The important distinction here is that some medical professionals can and do refuse to complete the procedure, even though they could easily do so...that would be the "labor" part of the equation. Strike one....

[Bonam]

The important distinction here is that some medical professionals can and do refuse to complete the procedure, even though they could easily do so...that would be the "labor" part of the equation. Strike one....

And are you sure that no medical professional ever refuses to perform any other type of procedure besides abortion?

[bush_cheney2004]

And are you sure that no medical professional ever refuses to perform any other type of procedure besides abortion?

They refuse for many reasons, but the collective result in Quebec is the lack of third-tri abortions in the entire province for a very specific reason. What other procedure is so uniformly withheld by medical professionals?

[Bonam]

They refuse for many reasons, but the collective result in Quebec is the lack of third-tri abortions in the entire province for a very specific reason. What other procedure is so uniformly withheld by medical professionals?

Are you sure that's the case? I think I'd need some citation before I'd take such a statement at face value. The entire province of Quebec is a big place with many medical institutions and professionals, and I would think there would be at least a few who would be willing to perform a third trimester abortion.

[bush_cheney2004]

Are you sure that's the case? I think I'd need some citation before I'd take such a statement at face value. The entire province of Quebec is a big place with many medical institutions and professionals, and I would think there would be at least a few who would be willing to perform a third trimester abortion.

Could be, but the last time I checked (wiki), there were no takers. The province was trying to recruit for this procedure, but no "joy".

CPC blog says:

In Quebec, there are a few abortuaries that perform abortions up to 22 weeks. Those that seek abortions later than that are taken care of by the CLSC des Faubourgs in Montreal. CLSC is responsible for making arrangements to obtain an abortion in New York State or Kansas. The Ministry of Health and Social Services covers the cost of the abortion; however, in cases of dire poverty, it will also pay for food, lodging, transportation and incidentals.

Edited April 4, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Bonam]

Could be, but it's just a blog. I think it would be quite possible for some individual doctor in some small clinic somewhere in Quebec to occasionally perform a late abortion without it becoming the go to spot for all of Quebec's late abortions. Heck perhaps they even purposefully keep things quiet so as to not incur the wrath of all the Catholics in the area?

Edited April 4, 2010 by Bonam

[bush_cheney2004]

... Heck perhaps they even purposefully keep things quiet so as to not incur the wrath of all the Catholics in the area?

Certainly possible, but the "party line" is no baby killin' after the point of viability. I was amazed to find that a complex protocol was in place to do the dirty deed in New York or Kansas (of all places). Moreover, it is not a growth industry, and certainly some doctors don't want the risks for such little reward.

Hi Daddy/Mommy....what did you do today?

[Bonam]

Certainly possible, but the "party line" is no baby killin' after the point of viability. I was amazed to find that a complex protocol was in place to do the dirty deed in New York or Kansas (of all places).

Yeah I don't see why Kansas. You'd figure there would be other Canadian and American locations much closer.

Moreover, it is not a growth industry, and certainly some doctors don't want the risks for such little reward.

Seems reasonable. Although I'm not sure about the "no growth" part. If abortion is as scarce as you say in Quebec, presumably an abortionist who set up shop would have quite a few customers.

Hi Daddy/Mommy....what did you do today?

I don't see anything problematic or controversial about an abortion doctor answering this question to their child.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yeah I don't see why Kansas. You'd figure there would be other Canadian and American locations much closer.

Lowest bidder?

Seems reasonable. Although I'm not sure about the "no growth" part. If abortion is as scarce as you say in Quebec, presumably an abortionist who set up shop would have quite a few customers.

Abortions are down...not up. And unless the mother's life is in danger or there is severe deformity, damn few doctors want a ticket to that third-trimester game.

I don't see anything problematic or controversial about an abortion doctor answering this question to their child.

Really? Would you explain in detail how the vacuum aspirator worked? I suppose you could kill two birds with one stone and get the whole "where do babies come from (and go)" conversation finished too!

[Bonam]

Lowest bidder?

Could be, would have to be lower by pretty far considering the added travel expenses.

Abortions are down...not up.

That wouldn't hurt the business of a doctor who was providing a service apparently so scarce in Quebec.

And unless the mother's life is in danger or there is severe deformity, damn few doctors want a ticket to that third-trimester game.

They're choice I suppose. Considering that these procedures are available in other parts of Canada, the inhibition is more likely than not to do with the Catholicity of Quebec than anything else.

Really?

Yes.

Would you explain in detail how the vacuum aspirator worked?

Each parent can decide just how much technical detail they want to go to with their child. There are many simple answers to that question would be enough for most young children, something along the lines of "I helped people not have babies they didn't want".

I suppose you could kill two birds with one stone and get the whole "where do babies come from (and go)" conversation finished too!

Yes, you could do it that way if you wanted to. Again, up to the parent. Personally, my view in regards to this is that children should be exposed to this kind of information from their parents as soon as the parents deem their children to be mature enough to understand it. It is better to find out about these kinds of things from one's parents than as random rumors filled with errors from other kids at school.

Edited April 4, 2010 by Bonam

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, you could do it that way if you wanted to. Again, up to the parent. Personally, my view in regards to this is that children should be exposed to this kind of information from their parents as soon as the parents deem their children to be mature enough to understand it. It is better to find out about these kinds of things from one's parents than as random rumors filled with errors from other kids at school.

OK. That's sweet...."gee Mommy....now that you have explained such things....thank you for not aborting me!"

[Bonam]

OK. That's sweet...."gee Mommy....now that you have explained such things....thank you for not aborting me!"

So what's your solution? Keep children ignorant of how babies are made and what abortion is? Better that they hear it randomly from some other kid at school who is probably gonna make a big spectacle of explaining it, get half of it all wrong, and laugh at the other kids in the process?

People are way too prudish here about explaining this kind of stuff to their children. It is simple human biology, general knowledge that everyone should know.

[bush_cheney2004]

So what's your solution? Keep children ignorant of how babies are made and what abortion is? Better that they hear it randomly from some other kid at school who is probably gonna make a big spectacle of explaining it, get half of it all wrong, and laugh at the other kids in the process?

Yes...I preferred the peer level process over anything my parents could explain, starting with bullshit about "Santa Claus". As for abortions, that would be the last advanced course, right after gun-type vs. implosion fission bombs to kill entire cities.

People are way too prudish here about explaining this kind of stuff to their children. It is simple human biology, general knowledge that everyone should know.

Maybe, but I don't think children should be normalized for abortions as routine medical care. Choices have consequences.

[Bonam]

Yes...I preferred the peer level process over anything my parents could explain, starting with bullshit about "Santa Claus".

Shrug, up to you. As for me, I learned about a lot of these things from my parents and I haven't been traumatized by the experience. Same goes for my sister.

As for abortions, that would be the last advanced course, right after gun-type vs. implosion fission bombs to kill entire cities.

Nothing wrong about learning about nuclear weapons either. Think I found out about those when I was like 5 or 6. Then my dad told me how they work in general terms. Seemed pretty cool actually.

Maybe, but I don't think children should be normalized for abortions as routine medical care. Choices have consequences.

Explaining what abortion is is a long way from normalizing it or telling your kids that choices don't have consequences. Most kids at the age when they can ask and understand the answers to these questions (like 7-9 probably depending on the kid) cannot yet really think of their future selves in these situations.

Edited April 4, 2010 by Bonam

[bush_cheney2004]

Shrug, up to you. As for me, I learned about a lot of these things from my parents and I haven't been traumatized by the experience. Same goes for my sister.

OK, but I learned there was a much broader source of information than my parents. I mean c'mon, Gray's Anatomy was readily available in the library, even if that certain page on female reproductive organs was quite used and abused

Nothing wrong about learning about nuclear weapons either. Think I found out about those when I was like 5 or 6. Then my dad told me how they work in general terms. Seemed pretty cool actually.

Very cool....I got to actually play with real ones when I grew up.

Explaining what abortion is is a long way from normalizing it or telling your kids that choices don't have consequences. Most kids at the age when they can ask and understand the answers to these questions (like 7-9 probably depending on the kid) cannot yet really think of their future selves in these situations.

Right, but it's like explaining where bacon comes from to your pet hog.

[Bonam]

OK, but I learned there was a much broader source of information than my parents. I mean c'mon, Gray's Anatomy was readily available in the library, even if that certain page on female reproductive organs was quite used and abused

Right and these days an interested kid could just check out wikipedia. Still, having a parent help with the understanding seems beneficial to me. There is no reason at all for this conversation to be awkward or taboo. No more than "where does my poopoo come from?"

Very cool....I got to actually play with real ones when I grew up.

Nice, I haven't gotten to "play" with real nukes myself. I've gotten to work on some pretty cool fusion experiments though.

Right, but it's like explaining where bacon comes from to your pet hog.

No, the level of understanding is there. They retain the information and can assimilate it and realize how it applies over time.

Edited April 4, 2010 by Bonam

[bush_cheney2004]

Right and these days an interested kid could just check out wikipedia. Still, having a parent help with the understanding seems beneficial to me. There is no reason at all for this conversation to be awkward or taboo. No more than "where does my poopoo come from?"

Sure...but we didn't need no steenkin' wikipedia! Example: There were no leash or spay/neuter laws for dogs when I was a kid. Most of the basic facts of life were soon revealed to any kid with a "bitch in heat".

Nice, I haven't gotten to "play" with real nukes myself. I've gotten to work on some pretty cool fusion experiments though.

Fusion is nice, but fission is where it all started for retroactive abortions!

No, the level of understanding is there. They retain the information and can assimilate it and realize how it applies over time.

Fair enough, just keep checking their story....

Edited April 4, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Bonam]

Fusion is nice, but fission is where it all started for retroactive abortions!

Haha, nice.

[bloodyminded]

Where is their biological beginning?

Presumably the male orgasm.

[Shady]

Abortion is one of the only issues in which the left refuses to acknowledge scientific fact. It's a rather interesting reversal of their love and devotion to all things science. I call them deniers.

And in this case, the term denier is more than appropriate. Because abortion is tantamount to the holocaust.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Shady