Debunking Abortion Myths

[eyeball]

You think you can divorce morality from ethics?

No not divorce them from each other, divorce implies complete separation with no middle ground.

[Guest American Woman]

This is the point I tried to make earlier.

There is no reason to assume that any or all of the 400 late term abortions were not medically necessary.

I leave that determination to the evaluation of medical professionals, not hysterical polemicists.

I agree. Furthermore, I've read that some abortions take place later than the pregnant woman would like because of wait times or not knowing that a pregnancy existed. Also, there's mental health, too; not all medical reasons are physical. Until one has been in the situation, I don't think one can truly judge. Seems, though, as if a lot of the judging that goes on is based in large part on the personal experiences of those doing the judging.

I know what I would choose/never choose to do, but that doesn't give me the right to judge others, decide what's right for others, much less determine what others have to do. It's not a black-and-white moral issue.

[lictor616]

Saying they are a very small proportion would be accurate...saying they are rare is not...if the 1000 # you mention is accurate..then they happen at an alarming rate of almost 20 per week..would we say murder is rare in Canada? 1000 late term abortions is almost twice as many murders in canada, in total in a year (average).

luckily abortion is not murder... so you can chillax there dancer

[fellowtraveller]

And equally there is no reason to assume they weren't...and given we have no law to stop a "post viable" abortion if there is no medical necessity...no medical evaluation is needed.

We agree then that , in the absence of any meaningful information, our opinions are just that. We don't know how many 'late term' abortions occur, or why they occur. What a sound basis to create law!

You are correct in that there is no law, one of the most thoroughly enlightened stances taken by successive Canadian governments. We both know that ProLifers are desperate to create abortion law, any law at all will do because then it can be judicially challeneged over and over and over in many courts in many places. Without any law their cause- I guess your cause too- is hopeless.

[fellowtraveller]

Its more accurate to say abortion is an ethical issue that raises questions. Perhaps if people stopped insisting it's strictly a moral issue these questions could be discussed more reasonably.

In fact abortion in Canad is neither a moral or ethical issue.... In practice it is a medical issue, which is why women have choice.

[Guest TrueMetis]

In fact abortion in Canad is neither a moral or ethical issue.... In practice it is a medical issue, which is why women have choice.

And why it has to be performed by doctors, which is enough for me.

[dre]

Im pro choice but I wouldnt mind seeing some sort of limit put on late term.

I dont really like the idea of purely elective abortions happening at this point. So I would support some sort of medical necessity language maybe... provided it was the doctors deciding what critieria makes them medically necessary not politicians or internet web forum pundits.

[Guest American Woman]

Im pro choice but I wouldnt mind seeing some sort of limit put on late term.

I dont really like the idea of purely elective abortions happening at this point. So I would support some sort of medical necessity language maybe... provided it was the doctors deciding what critieria makes them medically necessary not politicians or internet web forum pundits.

I think that a woman who is desperate enough to possibly go out and seek a back alley abortion is "medical necessity" enough. Women through the ages have been doing what they have felt desperate enough to do, and that included endangering their lives and causing the fetus pain since there was no doctor to ensure otherwise.

Sometimes the wait time is responsible for a woman having an abortion later than 20 weeks, sometimes it's medical reasons, sometimes it's that she didn't find out she was pregnant before that time. I don't think any woman would just decide for the heck of it to wait that long to have the abortion. It's a bigger deal for her emotionally and physically at that stage, too.

However, rushing a woman to make up her mind could result in a regretted abortion. It takes time to find out one is pregnant, to think through the decision, to schedule and attend medical appointments, to seek counselling, and then schedule the procedure.

Even though it's not desirable, I can see where once in a while an abortion would take place past 20 weeks. From what I've read, though, the vast majority take place prior to 20 weeks with 90% taking place before 13 weeks, while Statistics Canada has reported that less than 1% of abortions take place past 20 weeks gestation. link I would say less than 1%% makes late term abortions rare.

[fellowtraveller]

And why it has to be performed by doctors, which is enough for me.

The performanc of the procedure by doctors is surely a footnote to the real issue: who controls a womans reproductive capacity?

[bloodyminded]

I think that a woman who is desperate enough to possibly go out and seek a back alley abortion is "medical necessity" enough. Women through the ages have been doing what they have felt desperate enough to do, and that included endangering their lives and causing the fetus pain since there was no doctor to ensure otherwise.

You know, that's a really excellent point. I guess we can give a nod to your self-evidently sane resposne here, or we can conclude that women are lacking in moral character or intelligence, as a better explanation. The latter is a little difficult to swallow.

[CrazeeEddie]

We agree then that , in the absence of any meaningful information, our opinions are just that. We don't know how many 'late term' abortions occur, or why they occur. What a sound basis to create law!

You are correct in that there is no law, one of the most thoroughly enlightened stances taken by successive Canadian governments. We both know that ProLifers are desperate to create abortion law, any law at all will do because then it can be judicially challeneged over and over and over in many courts in many places. Without any law their cause- I guess your cause too- is hopeless.

Well, maybe we should be keeping track of these then eh? I think many Canadians believe it is the woman's right to choose, however, like every other aspect of our lives, there needs to be limitations and rules in place to ensure that the best possible decisions are always made.

I guess my question to all opposed to such regulation is why? What is it you are so afraid of? Most Canadians are not asking that abortions be totally outlawed. So what is it you are so afraid of?

[CrazeeEddie]

I think that a woman who is desperate enough to possibly go out and seek a back alley abortion is "medical necessity" enough.

Well, then maybe we should rethink our laws regarding theft, fraud, murder, and any number of other activities that we legally regulate?

[Remiel]

I think many Canadians believe it is the woman's right to choose, however, like every other aspect of our lives, there needs to be limitations and rules in place to ensure that the best possible decisions are always made

That is a contradiction in terms. You cannot simultaneously ensure a right to choose and ensure that the most desirable outcome is always the case. There is only one of the latter, and the former requires " choices " numbering at least two.

[M.Dancer]

That is a contradiction in terms. You cannot simultaneously ensure a right to choose and ensure that the most desirable outcome is always the case. There is only one of the latter, and the former requires " choices " numbering at least two.

Not in the context of our social reality...all rights are limited...freedom of speech does not include the right to slander, freedom of association does not include the right to form terrorist groups....and so on...

Like wise it may be perfectly reasonable to say that a woman has the right to choose termination up to a certain point in the pregnancy.

[bloodyminded]

Well, then maybe we should rethink our laws regarding theft, fraud, murder, and any number of other activities that we legally regulate?

I'm not too sure about your analogies here, honestly.

[WIP]

Well, then maybe we should rethink our laws regarding theft, fraud, murder, and any number of other activities that we legally regulate?

Well, get on with your rethinking then! If any law is a benefit to society, it should lead to improved outcomes. We are going through this right now with drug laws and a lot of other attempts to banish vices by making them illegal. When drug prohibition leads to jails filled with drug addicts, billions in profits for organized crime, and increasingly expensive and intrusive police enforcement....then, even a lot of us on the sidelines start "rethinking."

As for abortion...it already existed as a blackmarket business before abortion was decriminalized. Why should we go back in time and do it all over again? Before you start legally regulating something, you better make sure that the actual results of regulation are an improvement, or to the detriment of society.

[Remiel]

Not in the context of our social reality...all rights are limited...freedom of speech does not include the right to slander, freedom of association does not include the right to form terrorist groups....and so on...

Like wise it may be perfectly reasonable to say that a woman has the right to choose termination up to a certain point in the pregnancy.

Those examples are not the same. Compared to what he is saying, it would be more like freedom of speech only including the freedom to say " Love is a beautiful thing, " ; the freedom of association: the freedom to associate with Santa Claus.

Likewise, what you are saying is that a woman has a right to choose up to a certain point, and after that she does not have a right to choose. What that guy was saying was essentially the conjuction of a premise and its negation. That you have the right to choose to have an abortion, but you cannot have an abortion.

Edited June 24, 2010 by Remiel

[M.Dancer]

Those examples are not the same. Compared to what he is saying, it would be more like freedom of speech only including the freedom to say " Love is a beautiful thing, " ; the freedom of association: the freedom to associate with Santa Claus.

That you have the right to choose to have an abortion, but you cannot have an abortion.

No not at all...you have the right to say love is beautiful, or love is not beautiful...and the right to have or not have an abortion....up to a point where abortion is no longer an option.

Seriously, without a law, someone hypothetically, could say we have the right to have an abortion with no medical necessity at 6 months gestation...or 7 months...8 months..9 months...

And yes, even the right to association is limited by law and that is a fact.

[GostHacked]

Late term abortions are rare, and that is a plain fact.

However, I'd like to see stats on the reasons for the abortions. That would put this into a much better perspective.

[Remiel]

No not at all...you have the right to say love is beautiful, or love is not beautiful...and the right to have or not have an abortion....up to a point where abortion is no longer an option.

Seriously, without a law, someone hypothetically, could say we have the right to have an abortion with no medical necessity at 6 months gestation...or 7 months...8 months..9 months...

And yes, even the right to association is limited by law and that is a fact.

You are missing the entire point. You cannot say someone has a choice and say they only have one choice they can make, because only having one choice is not really a choice.

I am not arguing your points. Your points are not an accurate interpretation of what I was critiquing in the original post by that Crazy fella.

[M.Dancer]

However, I'd like to see stats on the reasons for the abortions.

Wymmin don't needno stinking reasons..reasons are a tool used by the patriarchal military argicultarl comples to oppress wimmyn...

http://www.abortionincanada.ca/facts/Why_Women_choose_abortion.html

The stats are old but if still applicable, only 6% of terminations can be attributed to a medical need.

Late term abortions are rare, and that is a plain fact.

A plain fact with no empirical data to back it up.

[M.Dancer]

You are missing the entire point. You cannot say someone has a choice and say they only have one choice they can make, because only having one choice is not really a choice.

I don't see where you arrive at they only have one choice.

If Canada adopted guidleines similar to most European nations we would have a law that allows choice up to 15 or 20 weeks gestation. So a woman has a choice to terminate prior to 20 weeks, a choice to not terminate...or more accurately...a choice she can make of A or B each day of her pregancy up to the 140th day.

Again, no rights are absolute....and I donm't think the right to terminate should be either.

[GostHacked]

A plain fact with no empirical data to back it up.

Since there is no empirical data, proving either side is correct/moral/ethical can't be done. That needs to be done to properly address this issue.

[M.Dancer]

Since there is no empirical data, proving either side is correct/moral/ethical can't be done. That needs to be done to properly address this issue.

Percentage distribution of induced abortions by gestation period

Table 1: Hospital and clinic abortions performed in Canada on Canadian residents

Gestation period

Data year Total records 1 Total detailed records 2 Under 9 weeks 9-12 weeks 13-16 weeks 17-20 weeks Over 20 weeks Unknown 4

% of total detailed records 3

1995 107,789 73,054 31.6 54.8 8.9 2.3 0.3 2.1

1996 111,358 74,636 30.5 55.9 9.5 2.4 0.3 1.5

1997 111,416 73,718 36.2 51.2 8.9 2.0 0.3 1.4

1998 110,034 67,212 36.6 49.5 9.6 2.5 0.3 1.5

1999 105,435 49,850 35.3 53.3 8.1 2.3 0.3 0.8

2000 105,212 50,358 35.7 48.4 7.0 2.4 0.4 6.1

2001 106,243 49,056 35.2 53.4 7.8 2.8 0.5 0.3

2002 105,002 49,566 41.7 47.6 7.1 2.3 0.6 0.7

2003 103,619 46,322 41.6 47.8 7.2 2.5 0.7 0.3

1. Total records include all reported hospital and clinic abortions performed in Canada on Canadian residents. For data years 2002 and 2003, abortions performed on residents of Nunavut are excluded due to incomplete reporting.

2. Total detailed records include those hospital and clinic abortions for which detailed information (e.g., gestation period) was reported.

3. The percentage distribution of abortions by gestation period was based on total detailed records only.

4. The Unknown gestation period refers to those abortions for which a detailed record was completed but the gestation period was stated as unknown.

http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/StatsCan-gestation-times-1995-2003.xls

Hard to say how accurate this is given that less than 1/2 of hospitals and clinics report age.

[GostHacked]

M. Dancer

I'd like to know why/what justified the abortions. Mother's health at risk, complications straight during pregnancy ect. This will put it into better perspective.