Abortion, Modern Values and Politics

[Hugo]

So abortions do save lives. By your numbers, illegal abortions, cost thousands of lives.

The figures I quote intend to show you that the death rate from legal abortions is high, certainly higher than most other surgical procedures because abortion clinics are not held to the same standards of cleanliness, post-op care and professionalism as hospitals. The death rate before was higher, probably because the same people were performing them but without a public image to uphold and a business to run, but legal abortion has absolutely not ridden us of the abortion death.

Your link is full of errors, such as the contention that a fetus canfeel pain at 12 weeks. At 12 weeks, the brain and nervous system are still in a very early stage of development.

"As early as eight to ten weeks after conception, and definitely by thirteen-and-a-half weeks, the unborn experiences organic pain... she responds to pain at all levels of her nervous system in an integrated response which cannot be termed a mere reflex. She can now experience pain." -- Robert P. N. Shearin, Surgeon (The Abortion Providers, 1989)

Albert Liley, a pioneer fetologist of the University of Auckland, opines that by the 56th day after conception (8 weeks) the spinal reflexes are sufficiently developed to feel pain. (Willke, Abortion Questions)

No, much of the "screaming" is because of the profusion of anti-abortion "counselling centres".

I used to be a volunteer at one of these counselling centres. The overwhelming focus of the work is with financial aid. We spent the great majority of our time and resources finding accomodation, baby clothes and equipment (cribs, strollers etc), pre-natal groups and support groups and so on. These centres do not push women towards a child she does not want but instead make it easier for her to have a child should she not wish an abortion. They are most useful for women who want their children but whose families or significant others are putting pressure on them to abort.

Abortions will still happen, legal or not.

However, it's a question of whether you would like 11,152 abortions (1970, 3% of live births) or 110,331 abortions (1998, 32.2% of live births) per year.

Legal abortion safeguards women's health and safety.

Unnecessary surgical procedures are hardly safeguards of health and safety. Less than 1 in 10,000 pregnancies result in the death of the mother (American Medical Association Encyclopedia of Medicine). The official figures for abortion are lower, however, research into the inaccuracy of abortion death figures (as I showed above) indicates that deaths by abortion are several times higher, per thousand, than deaths from pregnancy and live birth.

Furthermore, a single abortion raises the chance of a subsequent ectopic pregnancy by 100% and two or more raise it by 300% (American Journal of Public Health, March 1982). Ectopic pregnancy causes 12% of all deaths caused by pregnancy complications (Family Planning Perspectives, March/April 1983).

30% of all abortion recipients will contract Pelvic Inflammatory Disease, a serious illness causing sterility (American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, November 1984).

Women who have had an abortion are twice as likely to contract breast cancer as those who have not (British Journal: Cancer, 1981)

The chance of an abortion recipient having a subsequent miscarriage is ten times that of a woman who never had one (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 1980; American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, March 1981 and May 1983).

Tubal infertility (permanent steriliy) is 30% more common amongst abortion recipients (Fertility and Sterility, March 1985).

Premature, underweight and deformed babies are more common in prior abortion recipients (Madore, Effects of Induced Abortion; Linn, Outcome of Subsequent Pregnancies.

The infant mortality rate amongst those whose mother had received prior abortions is between two and four times that of infants whose mothers had not (British Medical Journal, 1976).

I can go on like this all day. Suffice it to say that abortion is absolutely not a healthy and safe option for either the mother or her subsequent children or, of course, the aborted child herself.

I'd be willing to bet that the costs of abortion pales in comparison to the costs society would incur if abortions were not legal.

So you put a monetary cost on human life? How much is a life worth, then?

If abortions weren't publically funded, it would drive women, especially those with low-incomes, to dangerous self-induced or back-alley abortions

Another myth. The abortion rate has increase 15 times since it was legalised, and a survey cited by David C. Reardon in Aborted Women: Silent No More (1987) showed that 72% of abortion recipients would not have aborted had it been illegal.

[Black Dog]

The figures I quote intend to show you that the death rate from legal abortions is high, certainly higher than most other surgical procedures because abortion clinics are not held to the same standards of cleanliness, post-op care and professionalism as hospitals. The death rate before was higher, probably because the same people were performing them but without a public image to uphold and a business to run, but legal abortion has absolutely not ridden us of the abortion death.

There's no way you could "rid us of abortion death". Less than one in 100 abortions results in serious complications, and less than one in 100,000 abortions have complications that result in death.

Albert Liley, a pioneer fetologist of the University of Auckland, opines that by the 56th day after conception (8 weeks) the spinal reflexes are sufficiently developed to feel pain. (Willke, Abortion Questions)

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: Statement on Pain of the Fetus

"We know of no legitimate scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus experiences pain early in pregnancy.

We do know that the cerebellum attains its final configuration in the seventh month and that mylenization (or covering) of the spinal cord and the brain begins between the 20th and 40th weeks of pregnancy. These, as well as other neurological developments, would have to be in place for the fetus to receive pain.

To feel pain, a fetus needs neurotransmitted hormones. In animals, these complex chemicals develop in the last third of gestation. We know of no evidence that humans are different. "

These centres do not push women towards a child she does not want but instead make it easier for her to have a child should she not wish an abortion. They are most useful for women who want their children but whose families or significant others are putting pressure on them to abort.

Many counselling centre are also known to utilize tactics such as offering free pregnancy tests but giving ambiguous answers about the results, showing shocking and deceptive films or slide shows, attempting to induce guilt by engaging women in discussions about their religious views and beliefs, refusing or failing to provide contraceptive information, and making exaggerated promises of financial assistance.

However, it's a question of whether you would like 11,152 abortions (1970, 3% of live births) or 110,331 abortions (1998, 32.2% of live births) per year.

It's a given that if abortion is legal and, therefore, easier to obtain, the numbers would increase from when it was illegal and less accessable.

Less than 1 in 10,000 pregnancies result in the death of the mother (American Medical Association Encyclopedia of Medicine).

Since the U.S. mortality rate for pregnancy is 7.5 maternal deaths for every 100,000 live-births (CDC, 1999). The current death rate from abortion at all stages of gestation is 0.6 per 100,000 procedures. Therefore, abortion is statistically safer than carrying a child to term.

Women who have had an abortion are twice as likely to contract breast cancer as those who have not (British Journal: Cancer, 1981)

I don't have time to check out all your medical claims, but this is one persistant myth that I can address .

The National Cancer Institute (NCI), the American Cancer Society (ACS), and the The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) have all refuted the reliability an association between abortion and breast cancer.

In February 2003, NCI convened the Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop to "provide an integrated scientific assessment of the association between reproductive events and the risk of breast cancer." After reviewing the body of scientific literature, NCI concluded that "Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk" (NCI, 2003).

In August 2003, after conducting its own review of the scientific literature, ACOG issued a committee opinion concluding that "early studies of the relationship between prior induced abortion and breast cancer risk have been inconsistent and are difficult to interpret because of methodologic considerations. More rigorous recent studies argue against a causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk" (ACOG, 2003).

(Planned Parenthood, "Anti-choice Claims About Abortion and Breast Cancer")

So you put a monetary cost on human life? How much is a life worth, then?

I'm not the one who brought up the financial costs of abortion.

Another myth. The abortion rate has increase 15 times since it was legalised, and a survey cited by David C. Reardon in Aborted Women: Silent No More (1987) showed that 72% of abortion recipients would not have aborted had it been illegal.

Again: an increase in the number of abortions following legalisation is entirely logical. As to the 72 per cent who would not have had abortions, we'd instead have a 72 per cent increase in unwanted children and the accompanying ill effects.

[Hugo]

Many counselling centre are also known to utilize tactics

That may be true, just as Planned Parenthood misleads expectant mothers into believing that their unborn look like "chopped liver", that they do not feel pain and so forth. It was not what I witnessed in my work, but it is a very hotly contested issue and many people do feel very passionately about it. "Screaming" takes place on both sides.

Therefore, abortion is statistically safer than carrying a child to term.

As I already explained, the statistics for abortion deaths are highly inaccurate and the real figures are probably between 10 and 30 times the publicised ones. Please review my earlier posts.

The National Cancer Institute (NCI), the American Cancer Society (ACS), and the The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) have all refuted the reliability an association between abortion and breast cancer.

Then it's one heck of a coincidence. It also depends upon the trimester in which the abortion is carried out.

As to the 72 per cent who would not have had abortions, we'd instead have a 72 per cent increase in unwanted children and the accompanying ill effects.

I'd hazard a guess that people would be substantially more careful if abortion were illegal. As it is, abortion is viewed and marketed as birth control, and if you doubt that, pick up a women's magazine and see how they are advertising RU-486. Not to mention that the hidden message in your statement is, "better dead than unwanted."

Furthermore, 91% of abused children were wanted (Edward Lenoski, Heartbeat v3 #4). Child abuse increased more than 500% in the first ten years following legalisation of abortion (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Report; National Study on Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting, The American Humane Association, 1981 & 1991; 1977 Analysis of Child Abuse and Neglect Research, U.S. Dept. of H.E.W., 1978). Ten years after that, it was 1400% higher. These studies also refute the idea that it is merely reporting of child abuse that has increased.

If your argument is related to poverty, and in all fairness to you that is not certain, I'd find the argument "better dead than poor" surprising coming from a socialist such as yourself.

[Black Dog]

As I already explained, the statistics for abortion deaths are highly inaccurate and the real figures are probably between 10 and 30 times the publicised ones. Please review my earlier posts.

Just to recap, here's your earlier post:

The actual figure is probably higher because abortion clinics are notorious for not reporting the death statistics accurately, and public health officials no longer seek out abortion death cases. For example, the Chicago Sun-Times found 12 cases in the Chicago area in 1978 where the woman had died as a direct result of an abortion procedure, but the case had been reported as an unrelated death. The acuteness of this problem is accentuated when you see that the US Center for Vital Statistics reported that total abortion deaths in the entire country for that year only counted 21.

You're not basing your conclusion on any actual facts, but are speculating based on assumption and a single, 25 year old, case.

Then it's one heck of a coincidence. It also depends upon the trimester in which the abortion is carried out.

Abortion and breast cancer

At least 80 research studies worldwide have collected data about breast cancer and reproductive factors such as childbirth, menstrual cycles, birth control pills, and abortion. Approximately 30 studies have examined the risk of developing breast cancer for women who have had abortions. Researchers at the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the World Health Organization, and major universities say that the most reliable studies show no increased risk, and they consider the entire body of research inconclusive

Most recently, in May 2003, the National Cancer Institute concluded that earlier studies that had suggested a connection between abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer were flawed. The newest, most scientifically reliable studies have consistently showed no association between abortion and breast cancer risk.

I'd hazard a guess that people would be substantially more careful if abortion were illegal. As it is, abortion is viewed and marketed as birth control, and if you doubt that, pick up a women's magazine and see how they are advertising RU-486. Not to mention that the hidden message in your statement is, "better dead than unwanted."

Oh yes, because the same people who oppose choice are also at the forefront of enhanced sex ed programs, right?

I'd like to see some actual solid evidence of early-stage abortion drugs like RU486 being marketed as birth control.

Furthermore, 91% of abused children were wanted (Edward Lenoski, Heartbeat v3 #4). Child abuse increased more than 500% in the first ten years following legalisation of abortion (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Report; National Study on Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting, The American Humane Association, 1981 & 1991; 1977 Analysis of Child Abuse and Neglect Research, U.S. Dept. of H.E.W., 1978). Ten years after that, it was 1400% higher. These studies also refute the idea that it is merely reporting of child abuse that has increased.

What exactly does the increased incidence of child abuse have to do with abortion?

yIf our argument is related to poverty, and in all fairness to you that is not certain, I'd find the argument "better dead than poor" surprising coming from a socialist such as yourself.

Straw man. First: you're theory requires that I bel;eive abortion is murder. It is not. What I do beleive is that unwanted children are often uncared-for, unloved, , or confined to lives of, yes, poverty or abandonment. This is not good for children, for families, or for the country.

The abortion issue is another example of the rank hypocrisy of the right-wing. The right-wing would call for limitations or a ban on abortions, but oppose sexual education programs that would reduce unwanted pregnancies, especially among young people. As well, the right wing agenda trends to focus on characterizations of "single mothers on welfare" as symbols and causes of society's failures, which bolsters the right's agenda of cuts to social programs that help the underpriviledged.

Bottom line: while many anti-abortion types certainly have real, moral misgivings about the issue, much of the anti-abortion agenda is driven by those who would deny women control of their reproductive destiny as a means of maintaining and excrabating social and economic inequalities and reinforcing the entrenched hierarchy.

[Sully]

Hey you know what a good way to reduce the number of single-parent homes? Easy access to abortion and contraceptive information, thing is right now there's no such things.

Oh people already know there are ways to avoid pregnancy, it just boils down to whether or not you want to take the chance of becoming pregnant. You may want to deny this fact but the choice to become pregnant is solely in the hands of the WOMAN. So, women decide if they want to take that chance and obviously many of them are seeing the results of taking that chance.

No I do not think abortion should be a way to reduce single parent families, I think contraception is. But that will only work when people in this society are responsible for their actions and not society.

As for society punishing individuals for choices by witholding support, well, I think a dog-eat-dog society like that is not worth living in.

I also find it sad how quickly people turn on the less fortunate members of society and blame them for many ills. Like you've never made bad choices?

Why do you call it punishment, when we hold people accountable for their actions. Do you call it punishment when men have no choice in whether or not they have a child, therefore leaving it up to the woman to decide the future of a man. No you call that responsibility of the man. Yet I would call that punishment, when you have no rights in the matter.

I have made bad choices in my life, but I sure knew I was going to avoid getting a girl pregnant, cause I like my life to be controlled by me thanks.

BD this one is mystifying me. I love the way you draw the parallel of abortion as being synonomous with people who are less fortunate, wow thats a typical left wing rant. Sorry I do not see people who get pregnant as being less fortunate, maybe you do. I see them as people who should be responsible for their actions. Hey you can give away your tax dollars to supporting that cause, I rather have my money spent on useful programs.

Contrary to what you might think, it's not that easy. Look at the States, where sex ed is predominately faith-based, with a focus on abstinence, which fails to give kids the knowledge they need. Meanwhile the media is full of conflicting messages and false information on sexuality, making it hard for kids to get an education. So I don't think the right information is getting out.

Oh I definitely think there are many conflicting views out there and its probably hard for the very young to understand, but a lot of these issues start at home.

But which is it, somedays we say that kids are smart and should be able to vote. Yet other days kids are kids and need us to look after them.

I think most kids know what sex can result in, but I am not sure about the costs. In this case I am talking young kids 14-16, above 17 I think they have a good grasp of the costs.

I don't think it should be. If a man gets a woman pregnant, the child is his responsibility too, whether he wanted it or not.

If a woman chooses to end the pregnancy, what is the man responisble for? No rights exist without responsibility.

The idea of punishing women for making reproductive choices is not creating a level playing field. I don't understand how you could justify making women pay for children they didn't or won't have. It's ridiculous.

Oh I agree that the man is responsible as equally as the woman, no denying that one. But the point you are missing is that the man has all the RESPONSIBILITY and NO RIGHTS.

See thats just it, I am not advocating that men can control the body's of women, women make the choice. I am advocating that men should have rights based on the decision that the woman makes, can you not see that.

Why should a woman control my future like that. If I do not want a child I should be able to freely sign the child over to the mother and release myself of the financial obligations. What is wrong with that.

What if I wanted the child and she terminated her pregnancy. I just get to sit idly by and smile. But women can give birth to a child, AGAINST HIS WILL, then have him flip the bill for the next 18 years of his life. Tell me how that is fair, I think in any other case you would call that punishment for a mistake, right.

So until that stops, men who want the child to be born should be able to seek a reasonable one time payment from the woman as compensation. The money will be held in trust for the man if he ever has a child, otherwise he cannot have access to the money, ever.

Lastly, I don't understand how you could justify making a man pay for children they didn't want or wanted to have (ie the burden of losing that child). It's ridiculous

There's good reasons women have the ultimate say in whether or not to have kids. First, it's their body and no man should be able to dictate what she does with it. As well, women are the ones who have to carry the kids and raise them: so yeah, I think they should get more say.

You are preaching to the converted on that one BD. But I have never stated that women should not have that say. I am all for that. But I am also all for men having rights based on the decision of the woman, cause as of right now, men are not even mentioned in this issue and they have their lives drastically affected by the outcome.

As for the rest, ae you saying men have no choice in contraception or abstinence? Men have choices and responsibility fo rpreventing unwanted pregnancies too.

Nope never said, I have stated men are irresponsible. I believe they should only trust themselves for making sure they doing everything possible to avoid an unwanted pregnancy, it takes two to make a baby, but right now only one of those people has any rights.

[Black Dog]

Oh people already know there are ways to avoid pregnancy, it just boils down to whether or not you want to take the chance of becoming pregnant.

That's bull. There's information out there, but not everyone has access to it. For instance, conrast the low rates of teen pregnancy, STDs and abortions in Europe, where comprehensive sex ed is the norm, with the rates in North America (espcially the USA, where abstinence-only sex ed dominates).

You may want to deny this fact but the choice to become pregnant is solely in the hands of the WOMAN. So, women decide if they want to take that chance and obviously many of them are seeing the results of taking that chance.

MEN SHARE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PRACTICE SAFE SEX AND PREVENT UNPLANNED PREGNANCIES.

Let me put it another way: where do women wear condoms?

Why do you call it punishment, when we hold people accountable for their actions

It's one thing to hold people accountable. But the idea of making women pay men money for children they won't have is a punitive measure by any standard.

Do you call it punishment when men have no choice in whether or not they have a child, therefore leaving it up to the woman to decide the future of a man. No you call that responsibility of the man. Yet I would call that punishment, when you have no rights in the matter.

Your first sentence should read: "Do you call it punishment when men have no choice in whether or not the woman has a child..." It's not punishment, it's acknowledging, again, the women's right to control her own reproductive and sexual fate. Do men sometimes lose out? Yes. But that's the price we have to pay. The alternative is forcing women to have children against their will (a revolting concept in a free society).

Sorry I do not see people who get pregnant as being less fortunate, maybe you do

I wasn't talking about pregnant people , I was, in the context of the discussion, talking about single parent. And yeah, I consider people who are pilloried and victimized by society for mistakes or for exercising their individual rights to be less fortunate.

I think most kids know what sex can result in, but I am not sure about the costs. In this case I am talking young kids 14-16, above 17 I think they have a good grasp of the costs.

So what, you think kids know the consequenses and are simply choosing pregnancy and STDS? C'mon, man!

The problem is this: we have a society where the media and popular culture glorify sex, and a political and educational culture that tries to mystify and vilify it (the SuperBowl boob furor being aprime example of North America's thouroughly puritan attitudes towards sex).

Kids are exposed to both and, consequentially, are confused by the conflicting messages.

Oh I agree that the man is responsible as equally as the woman, no denying that one. But the point you are missing is that the man has all the RESPONSIBILITY and NO RIGHTS.

Basically, I think pregnancy and the decision to see a pregnancy to term or not has a far greater impact on women than men, which is why, when the women's right to choose clashes with a man's wishes, we defer to the women.

I understand the unfairness of forcing men to pay for children they do not want, but I don't see any practical way to address that (barring giving men uteruses).

I can kinda see giving men the option to choose not to be a father by relinquishing custodial rights, within a specified time frame of discovering the pregnancy, if he does not want the child and the mother chooses to keep the baby. But that doesn't take th eneeds of the child into account (then again, I wouldn't agree with someone who opted to have a child they could not support).

But I thinking the idea of making women pay is, as I said, ridiculous.

[Hugo]

You're not basing your conclusion on any actual facts, but are speculating based on assumption and a single, 25 year old, case.

I picked that case for example because it was fairly typical of what I read. I have also read accounts of women being shoved out of abortion clinics still bleeding profusely, abortion doctors who refused to call ambulances for their patients undergoing obvious complications because it would compromise their standing as a reputable business and so forth.

I don't have more documented examples at the moment. I can suggest some links for further reading:

Center for Bio-Ethical Reform

Action Life Ottawa

Roe v. Wade.org

If you are really interested in further examples I will find some, I have a lot of material on the subject. It will take a while, however.

The newest, most scientifically reliable studies have consistently showed no association between abortion and breast cancer risk.

If that has been the case since the studies I read, very well. The fact remains that for a great variety of reasons abortion remains a risky procedure.

I'd like to see some actual solid evidence of early-stage abortion drugs like RU486 being marketed as birth control.

As I suggested, ask your wife for one of her women's magazines and flip through until you see an advert for it. I saw one that talked about the comfort of doing it in your own home, and how quick and easy it was. It didn't warn the prospective customer that they will pass copious amounts of blood and possibly recognisable body parts. The word "abortifacent" was not even mentioned. Nor did it mention the deaths associated with the drug (obviously, they're trying to sell these things).

What exactly does the increased incidence of child abuse have to do with abortion?

You talked about the "ill effects" of unwanted children. If you did not mean child abuse or poverty, what did you mean by "ill effects?"

First: you're theory requires that I bel;eive abortion is murder. It is not.

Explain why you believe that.

The right-wing would call for limitations or a ban on abortions, but oppose sexual education programs that would reduce unwanted pregnancies, especially among young people.

Not this right-winger. I would support any sex-ed agenda that will promote responsible sex, discourage the idea that promiscuity, one-night-stands etc. are laudable, promote knowledge of birth control methods and above all else, personal responsibility.

I'd also love to see some programmes that can really help young mothers and make pregnancy and birth a viable option. For example, I'd like to see more workplaces and educational facilities offering daycares and creches, and the promotion of community support networks such as babysitting circles and peer-provided post-natal support groups.

Sadly, because abortion has been pushed as the responsible choice for so long, very few people will consider anything that would make the life of a young and/or single mother easier. The stock answer these days seems to be, "she should have had an abortion."

Let me put it another way: where do women wear condoms?

See here for instructions!

[maplesyrup]

A message for men concerning the abortion issue:

"Mind your own business"

[Sully]

That's bull. There's information out there, but not everyone has access to it. For instance, conrast the low rates of teen pregnancy, STDs and abortions in Europe, where comprehensive sex ed is the norm, with the rates in North America (espcially the USA, where abstinence-only sex ed dominates).

Hey I am all for making sex education mandatory, making it madatory throughout schools would be great, I got no problem with that.

But don't kid yourself there are vasts amount of information out on the subject and also this subject is common sense. I mean today we have counselors, hotlines, books, magazines, education programs, doctors, etc. etc. all who could provide advice, its whether or not the person chooses to ignore those facts.

I mean its been known that smoking causes cancer for the last the last 40 years, people still do it and start doing it today and people still want to sue tobacco companies for making them sick. People even teenagers have to take responsibility for themselves too, its not always societies fault or always the parents fault, kids can be at fault too for their mistakes and they should have to pay for them, not the rest of us. But no one can force these kids to abstain from sex or use contraception.

MEN SHARE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PRACTICE SAFE SEX AND PREVENT UNPLANNED PREGNANCIES.

Let me put it another way: where do women wear condoms?

Yes I agree, there are many stupid guys out there walking around with loaded pistols and they should pay for their faults too. Men should be aware of the imbalance of rights they have if they get a woman pregnant. I think guys have to look out for themselves. But that does not mean guys should carry the burden of responsiblity without rights.

It's one thing to hold people accountable. But the idea of making women pay men money for children they won't have is a punitive measure by any standard.

I am not trying make it into a punishment. But as of right now all "punishment" goes hand in hand with being a man. They can be punished if the woman does or does not have the child. If men did not have to pay I would not advocate that women should bear a burden financially either. But as of right now, no one is denying that the WOMAN is sole decision maker in the abortion process, not contesting that nor will I ever. But some more equal footing should be made for men.

Your first sentence should read: "Do you call it punishment when men have no choice in whether or not the woman has a child..." It's not punishment, it's acknowledging, again, the women's right to control her own reproductive and sexual fate. Do men sometimes lose out? Yes. But that's the price we have to pay. The alternative is forcing women to have children against their will (a revolting concept in a free society).

Well you seem to think that making women pay a reasonable balance to be held in trust for electing to have an abortion against a mans will would be punishment, yet its ok for men to have their wallets opened up, without any say or rights. Yes what an equal society. Sorry but I do not think its price we have to pay. When men stop being forced to pay, then it will be equal. AND NO WHERE HAVE I EVER STATED THAT OR ADVOCATED THAT WOMEN SHOULD BE FORCED TO HAVE CHILDREN, just stated that the act of abortion affects more than just them and that should be taken into account.

I wasn't talking about pregnant people , I was, in the context of the discussion, talking about single parent. And yeah, I consider people who are pilloried and victimized by society for mistakes or for exercising their individual rights to be less fortunate.

Well single parents like many other people in this country all have their problems. I do not see a systematic agenda against this particular group, just because individuals make mistakes does not mean society should be there to flip the bill. If I have kids, I am responsible for them, no one else but my wife and me. PERIOD.

So what, you think kids know the consequenses and are simply choosing pregnancy and STDS? C'mon, man!

The problem is this: we have a society where the media and popular culture glorify sex, and a political and educational culture that tries to mystify and vilify it (the SuperBowl boob furor being aprime example of North America's thouroughly puritan attitudes towards sex).

Kids are exposed to both and, consequentially, are confused by the conflicting messages.

I think kids are like kids of most generations they do what they want. I was taught good values, yet I still strayed from them, yet I knew it was wrong. Kids are not choosing those things directly but indirectly. Most kids especially when they have friend their age, who this has happened too, know first hand the results, yet still they are in charge of their lives and do as they please.

Basically, I think pregnancy and the decision to see a pregnancy to term or not has a far greater impact on women than men, which is why, when the women's right to choose clashes with a man's wishes, we defer to the women.

I understand the unfairness of forcing men to pay for children they do not want, but I don't see any practical way to address that (barring giving men uteruses).

I can kinda see giving men the option to choose not to be a father by relinquishing custodial rights, within a specified time frame of discovering the pregnancy, if he does not want the child and the mother chooses to keep the baby. But that doesn't take th eneeds of the child into account (then again, I wouldn't agree with someone who opted to have a child they could not support).

But I thinking the idea of making women pay is, as I said, ridiculous.

I agree women go through a lot more with childbirth, I ll never be one so I ll never know for sure what it is like. But I am a man and feel that men should have rights too. And as I have stated all along women will and should be the sole decision maker.

I have addressed this issue for you, until men are allowed to opt out of the financial burden, men should be put on a more equal playing field. I do not think anybody should have to pay for a child they do not want to have. But some equality on this issue needs to be addressed. Its an unfortunate situation, but it is all too common.

[Sully]

To address MS telling men to butt out.

Men will butt out when:

1.) they have rights that protect them surrounding the abortion issue (We agree that women should have the ultimate choice, no one is disputing that)

2.) their tax dollars are not spent on an issue where someone like you thinks they should not have a voice.

So give us rights and don't waste our tax dollars on this issue and we will butt out.

Sad that many of our next generation of men are being raised solely by women.

[takeanumber]

Sad that many of our next generation of men are being raised solely by women.

^

^

^

|

|

|

|

|

Mysoginist Statement.

[BigGunner]

Arguing about the abortion topic is fine, but Canadians are overwhelmingly pro-choice. Most of them also agree that abortion fees and costs be paid out of the provincial healthcare plans in every province. I think the pro-choice comes from the angle that most people believe that an individual woman is the only one that can make a choice about her body...period..

Minority viewpoints are certainly welcome to be shared here, but politically speaking, its a hot potato that the conservatives should have avoided...they will pay.

Since the pro-life movement is far smaller in Canada than America, it really is a minority viewpoint. A view that is largely shared by the evangelical Christian fundamentalists. Since Canadians are probably more in tune with the notion of the separation of church and state, ANY talk of reversing this trend rings alarm bells with many citizens.

Canadians are socially "Liberal". That is a fact. That is why gay marriages, the pro-choice movement are more accepted here than America.

By opening this political Pandoras Box, the conservatives just gave the Liberals and NDP a weapon to hit the cons. with.

No wonder that Harper has imposed a gag order on his candidates....put out the fires before they start.

[Sully]

Mysoginist Statement

Why because I do not share your viewpoint, explain to how this amounts to mysogny, please enlighten me. Never once have I promoted hatred towards or the reduction of womens rights. I have promoted men's rights, that probably makes me wrong, right.

Yes I find it sad that many young men and women will grow up without a stable male role model in their lives, which is a failure of many men to take responsbility for their actions. But yes the demise of the traditional family does have consequences, not in every case is that lack of a male figure cause a horrible outcome. But if you think a woman can replace a man in a family you are horribly mistaken.

[August1991]

Sad that many of our next generation of men are being raised solely by women.

Misogynist? I would rather say terribly misleading.

I guess Sully means to say that in the past, children (including boys) were raised in a family with a mommy and a daddy. Now, because of all the radical social changes, lack of moral fibre, social discipline, egotism of some adults, the freedom people enjoy, children are raised in "broken" families by a single mother.

A walk in any cemetery should dispense anyone of this naive view of the past. Because of death (or a whole host of other reasons related to poor communications and travel), children were frequently raised in single parent families in the past. Children were often raised by other family members.

Take two famous examples. Pierre Trudeau and Bill Clinton.

Sully is wrong not misogynist.

[takeanumber]

But if you think a woman can replace a man in a family you are horribly mistaken.

^

|

|

|

Wrong.

[Sully]

But if you think a woman can replace a man in a family you are horribly mistaken.

^

|

|

|

Wrong.

^

|

|

|

WHY? WHY? WHY?

Sorry a man cannot replace a mother and woman cannot replace a father. And we are not talking about exceptions to this case, where the man is abusive, negligent, or is an alcoholic. Were talking normal family here. And no the debate is not what is "normal" persay.

JUST PROVIDE FACTS AS TO WHY I AM WRONG ON THIS MATTER!!!!!!

[takeanumber]

Sorry a man cannot replace a mother and woman cannot replace a father. And we are not talking about exceptions to this case, where the man is abusive, negligent, or is an alcoholic. Were talking normal family here. And no the debate is not what is "normal" persay.

And we are not talking about exceptions to this case, where the man is abusive, negligent, or is an alcoholic.

lol

Were talking normal family here. And no the debate is not what is "normal" persay.

Hedging your position all of a sudden eh?

You were wrong on the first count, without the hedge.

You shouldn't try to justify your position. The fact that you're hedging suggests that you already know your initial statement was wrong. Don't make it worse.

[BigGunner]

This is why the conservatives are in trouble on this topic, especially in progressive urban centres..

Canadians are opposed to state-imposed regulation on private affairs of citizens...whether its abortion, lifestyle descrimination...

80% of Canadians live in urban centres. The conservatives have done well in most rural areas, but the battles are won and lost in the cities - where most of the voters are.

Bringing up so-called 'free votes' on abortion rights issues or womens rights is the red flag that the conservatives should not have raised. Urban Canada is not "Conservative" they are progressive, even "Liberal" (using the generic term of course).

Feel free to argue this all you want (to: conservative party apologists) but the more you try to defend the conservative social agenda, the less that Canadians will vote for it.

[Sully]

Hedging your position all of a sudden eh?

You were wrong on the first count, without the hedge.

You shouldn't try to justify your position. The fact that you're hedging suggests that you already know your initial statement was wrong. Don't make it worse.

Hardly a hedge, just beating you to the punch where your defence of your points will focus on the family already being dysfunctional. Nope sorry you would have to prove me wrong on this one with valid points. So go ahead, your relatively shortwinded post makes me think that you have nothing valuable to add to this debate. But provide facts please if you are going to respond.

Justifying your position is the whole point of a debate, see in order for someone to understand you have make sure they know how you feel on a particular subject whether it be opinion or fact, wow such a simple point on a forum for debate and you are unaware of that, I guess I gave you way too much credit.

Feel free to argue this all you want (to: conservative party apologists) but the more you try to defend the conservative social agenda, the less that Canadians will vote for it.

Yes you are right BigGunner, I mean I see the polls showing support for the conservatives increasing, hmmmmm shoots your theory all to s!@t........

[takeanumber]

Justifying your position is the whole point of a debate, see in order for someone to understand you have make sure they know how you feel on a particular subject whether it be opinion or fact, wow such a simple point on a forum for debate and you are unaware of that, I guess I gave you way too much credit.

Not enough credit.

But nice try. It was a hedge. And you are backtracking.

I'm wondering how far back you'll track.

QUOTE 

Feel free to argue this all you want (to: conservative party apologists) but the more you try to defend the conservative social agenda, the less that Canadians will vote for it.

Yes you are right BigGunner, I mean I see the polls showing support for the conservatives increasing, hmmmmm shoots your theory all to s!@t........

The Conservative vote is crumbling in the urban areas.

Divorced women also live in the suburbs, so we're going to see a delayed response to the curve there.

[RB]

bien takeanumber

mes amies ont bougés à NDP, peu de le mal

[Sully]

No where did I backtrack, I pointed out the exceptions to the rule, which I am sure someone would have raised and those are not the issues that are being talked about here. If you like to call that backtracking go ahead, call it what you want.

But where are your valid points, prove to me that a woman can replace a man, prove to me that a woman can perform the role of mother and father at the same time, its impossible and you know it people cannot be the two people at once!!! I am waiting to hear it, you are still silent as of yet on this point!!!!

I guess we will see on election day how the vote stacks up!!

[takeanumber]

But where are your valid points, prove to me that a woman can replace a man, prove to me that a woman can perform the role of mother and father at the same time, its impossible and you know it people cannot be the two people at once!!! I am waiting to hear it, you are still silent as of yet on this point!!!!

It was your arguement.

Prove that it's not true that a woman can't replace a man as a father.

Go ahead. Prove it.

[Sully]

This argument is just common sense.

Do you agree that men and women are different?

I would say so, just look at the way men and women would vote on different issues. Men and women generally look at issues from different angles, but not always. That being said a man cannot fully understand or comprehend a woman's viewpoint and vice versa, that makes it impossible to teach both those viewpoints to a child. Therefore when people come from two different viewpoints it establishes a clear distinction between the way the two sides interact. Those actions as a result of different viewpoints would have a clear impact on the development of young child, would you not agree? Having a child raised under a single parent would only expose them to a one set of viewpoints and therefore they would develop a biased opinion, I do not think that is as healthy or as positive as having two healthy viewpoints from which to choose.

Let me ask you this were you raised by two parents? If you were, would you be the person you are now if you raised solely by say your mother? Think about all that you would have missed and learned had your father not been there...... If you were raised by just your mother, you may never know how much not having a father has affected you and yes thats not to say you will not turn on to be a productive member of society, cause you were raised by your mother.

There is no denying the fact that having a loving and caring mother and father is better than just having a single loving parent, after all we are a product of two people not just one!!!!

There is no logical reasoning behind how a woman could replace a man, women and men are equal in the eyes of the law, but we are very different in how we think and that has an effect on the development of a child.

[takeanumber]

That being said a man cannot fully understand or comprehend a woman's viewpoint and vice versa, that makes it impossible to teach both those viewpoints to a child.

Your arguement falls apart here.

I don't believe that a man cannot fully understand or comprehend a woman's point of view, and vice versa.

I believe maybe SOME men REFUSE to fully understand a woman's point of view.

It's a question of ignorance, which of course, breeds Conservatism.

But no, a woman can fully comprehend another man's pov, just as a man can.

It's a question of ignorance versus education.

Since there does exist at least one man who fully comprehends a woman's point of view, counterexample shown.

Who is this man? David Rayside, U of Toronto.

(and after you're done trying showing that that man doesn't fully understand a woman's point of view and if you pull it off, I have a list of about 25 men who do.)

I commend you on your attempt Sully. It was a good one.

Retreat for now and come at it from another angle that's easier to prove.