Are women in danger of losing their abortion rights?

[bush_cheney2004]

The very term "abortion rights" is a political misnomer. How could such "rights" be riddled with so many barriers and restrictions to actual availability in provinces and territories?

[bush_cheney2004]

But they make people pregnant.

True, but see Mr. Canada's interesting retort with respect to ultimate body ownership...can't have it both ways. This, like all other abortion debates, leads to "rape, incest, and health of the mother" nexus. Abortion...the gift that keeps on giving!

[bush_cheney2004]

Exactly. Which is why "rocking the boat" is a good thing. It's why being vocal is a good thing. It's how things get done.

Yes....that's how social change "gets done". Many Canadians are loathe to admit it, but when it came to abortion policy, Canada was more conservative and more religiously stunted than was the United States, first at the state/provincial level...then at the federal level.

[Guest American Woman]

True, but see Mr. Canada's interesting retort with respect to ultimate body ownership...can't have it both ways. This, like all other abortion debates, leads to "rape, incest, and health of the mother" nexus. Abortion...the gift that keeps on giving!

Sure can have it both ways. Women can choose to have sex and then choose what to do with their bodies after having had sex. They don't have to refrain from having sex because some don't like the alternatives. If they had to do that, where would the choice lie? And who would all those horny men be having sex with?

[bush_cheney2004]

Sure can have it both ways. Women can choose to have sex and then choose what to do with their bodies after having had sex. They don't have to refrain from having sex because some don't like the alternatives. If they had to do that, where would the choice lie? And who would all those horny men be having sex with?

That's why we invented "gay marriage"!

[ToadBrother]

Shouldn't women be more personally responsible in their sex lives? Using tax payer funded abortion as birth control is less then ideal.

I keep hearing this, but no one seems to provide statistics on the rate that it is used as "birth control".

[TimG]

I keep hearing this, but no one seems to provide statistics on the rate that it is used as "birth control".

Even if someone can find some stats, I would rather fund an abortion than fund a teen mom on welfare.

[ToadBrother]

Even if someone can find some stats, I would rather fund an abortion than fund a teen mom on welfare.

Or worse, have her get one of those back-alley abortions. People seem to forget that there was an abortion industry of sorts in the past, and I can't imagine why anyone would possibly want to return to it.

[bush_cheney2004]

I keep hearing this, but no one seems to provide statistics on the rate that it is used as "birth control".

One can draw some conclusions based on published abortion and live birth statistics. In Ontario, for instance:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/canada/ab-canadar-ON.html

[bush_cheney2004]

Or worse, have her get one of those back-alley abortions. People seem to forget that there was an abortion industry of sorts in the past, and I can't imagine why anyone would possibly want to return to it.

What is a "back alley" abortion? I have heard this colorful term all my life, but have never discovered this mythical place. I do not recall any neon signage in strip malls or megaplexes advertising abortions either.

[Mr.Canada]

Sure can have it both ways. Women can choose to have sex and then choose what to do with their bodies after having had sex. They don't have to refrain from having sex because some don't like the alternatives. If they had to do that, where would the choice lie? And who would all those horny men be having sex with?

Ok so women are in charge of their own bodies. They must therefore be in charge of what goes into their bodies. Meaning they take personal responsibility for getting pregnant. They should also be in charge of paying for the abortion, if that is what they choose to do. Cannot be in charge of everything to do with their bodies except paying for an elective surgery can they?

If these irresponsible women are demanding I pay for their elective surgeries then I should get some say otherwise these irresponsible women can pay for their own abortions. If people want taxpayer funded healthcare then the taxpayer should get some say in how it's delivered. It's our money after all.

[bush_cheney2004]

Digging deeper, the percentage of Canadian births ended by abortion is posited here:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/mapcanabrate.html

[Guest American Woman]

Ok so women are in charge of their own bodies. They must therefore be in charge of what goes into their bodies. Meaning they take personal responsibility for getting pregnant.

Hardly "personal" responsibility since the sperm came from somewhere else. I have to roll my eyes at what you are suggesting, though, because in effect you are saying that women should "choose" not to have sex since they are the ones who get pregnant. Some "choice" that is, eh? Here's the thing. Women most times can control what goes into their bodies -- and then control what goes on afterward as well. You might not like the choices, you might not like that abortion is sometimes the responsible decision for that person, but that falls under the category of "too bad." You have no more of a right to determine that women shouldn't be having sex than you can determine what they can or cannot do afterwards.

They should also be in charge of paying for the abortion, if that is what they choose to do. Cannot be in charge of everything to do with their bodies except paying for an elective surgery can they?

So someone who smokes should be in charge of paying for their lung cancer treatment? Someone who overeats and gets diabetes should be in charge of paying for their treatment? Someone who chooses to engage in sports where injury is a possibility should be in charge of paying for their medical care? Someone who drinks and drives and gets in an accident resulting in injuries should be in charge of paying for their injuries? Someone who doesn't dress warmly enough and ends up getting sick should be in charge of paying for their medical treatment? And on and on it goes..........

If these irresponsible women are demanding I pay for their elective surgeries then I should get some say otherwise these irresponsible women can pay for their own abortions. If people want taxpayer funded healthcare then the taxpayer should get some say in how it's delivered. It's our money after all.

It's the "irresponsible women's" money, too. And here's a tip. For someone who doesn't want to be pregnant, who isn't in the position to carry a pregnancy to term, an abortion isn't "elective." It's necessary It's the only way to get un-pregnant.

You don't get to "approve" of what people do or don't do just because your money goes into the tax fund. I'm sure you do things that other tax payers wouldn't approve of, too; or they don't approve of things that you would approve of. For example. Some tax payers wouldn't approve of having to pay for someone's child that they didn't plan on having and can't support.

Edited April 23, 2011 by American Woman

[bloodyminded]

I think AW has just shattered Mr. Canada's argument.

[bush_cheney2004]

....It's the "irresponsible women's" money, too. And here's a tip. For someone who doesn't want to be pregnant, who isn't in the position to carry a pregnancy to term, an abortion isn't "elective." It's necessary It's the only way to get un-pregnant.

Not sure what you mean here....medically necessary abortions are different from simple contraceptive abortions.

[Mr.Canada]

Hardly "personal" responsibility since the sperm came from somewhere else. I have to roll my eyes at what you are suggesting, though, because in effect you are saying that women should "choose" not to have sex since they are the ones who get pregnant. Some "choice" that is, eh? Here's the thing. Women most times can control what goes into their bodies -- and then control what goes on afterward as well. You might not like the choices, you might not like that abortion is sometimes the responsible decision for that person, but that falls under the category of "too bad." You have no more of a right to determine that women shouldn't be having sex than you can determine what they can or cannot do afterwards.

What I am suggesting is that women have control of the sex. Not that they should abstain. But instead be responsible. Use condoms, spermicide, sponges what have you. Is this too much to ask? Is that the problem?

So someone who smokes should be in charge of paying for their lung cancer treatment? Someone who overeats and gets diabetes should be in charge of paying for their treatment? Someone who chooses to engage in sports where injury is a possibility should be in charge of paying for their medical care? Someone who drinks and drives and gets in an accident resulting in injuries should be in charge of paying for their injuries? Someone who doesn't dress warmly enough and ends up getting sick should be in charge of paying for their medical treatment? And on and on it goes..........

Not at all the same thing. Someone who has cancer needs a procedure of they'll die. Someone in an auto accident needs surgery or they could die. No ones going to die if they don't get an abortion. Surgery needed to live paid by taxpayers good. Surgery that is not needed to live paid by taxpayers bad. See the difference. If women want to be in charge of their own bodies, fine with me as long as they're consistent in that determination and follow it through. They can also be in charge of paying for elective surgeries as well.

The problem is that women need to take more personal responsibility instead of offloading their problems onto society because they cannot keep their libidos in check. When they choose to have sex they should take the proper precautions if they don't want a baby. IS this just waaayyy too hard for women to do? Is that the problem?

Edited April 24, 2011 by Mr.Canada

[August1991]

So someone who smokes should be in charge of paying for their lung cancer treatment? Someone who overeats and gets diabetes should be in charge of paying for their treatment? Someone who chooses to engage in sports where injury is a possibility should be in charge of paying for their medical care? Someone who drinks and drives and gets in an accident resulting in injuries should be in charge of paying for their injuries? Someone who doesn't dress warmly enough and ends up getting sick should be in charge of paying for their medical treatment? And on and on it goes..........

And yet, AW, men are expected to pay child support whether or not they have any contact with the child - merely based on paternity. Moreover, a man can be forced to pay child support even there is no paternity but he has a significant relationship with the child.

So in a sense, if you smoke and get cancer, if two people have sex and one gets pregnant, or if a man decides to move in with his girlfriend and her kids, then there may be costly consequences. I have no problem with that. Do you?

Or worse, have her get one of those back-alley abortions. People seem to forget that there was an abortion industry of sorts in the past, and I can't imagine why anyone would possibly want to return to it.

I agree.

Even if someone can find some stats, I would rather fund an abortion than fund a teen mom on welfare.

I agree, up to a point.

IOW, I think that we should take a practical view of abortion. It is hypocritical to say that the State should not condone murder.

Edited April 24, 2011 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

...IOW, I think that we should take a practical view of abortion. It is hypocritical to say that the State should not condone murder.

Agreed...."abortions rights" are only the beginning of state sponsored killing that traverses a very long continuum of very deadly policies. It's better to just admit the obvious and be done with it.

[August1991]

Agreed...."abortions rights" are only the beginning of state sponsored killing that traverses a very long continuum of very deadly policies. It's better to just admit the obvious and be done with it.

"... and be done with it"?

I disagree, B_C.

----

The State condones death: for example, Predator Drones & Nevada shooters and collapsing bridges.

It is naive to believe that "all life is sacred". Simply stated, we can't afford to prolong everyone's life.

I think we should accept this fact and maybe start to think about how to decide which deaths are (for lack of a better term) acceptable.

Edited April 24, 2011 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

...I think we should accept this fact and maybe start to think about how to decide which deaths are (for lack of a better term) acceptable.

I think we do accept this fact when the political or economic context provides justification or reason. Clearly "human life" is not intrinsically valuable given the continuum of state sponsored ways for extinguishing same. Safe and legal abortions are a quirk of modern medical prowess and political will that could not otherwise exist.

[Battletoads]

Or worse, have her get one of those back-alley abortions. People seem to forget that there was an abortion industry of sorts in the past, and I can't imagine why anyone would possibly want to return to it.

Most people against abortion don't can't think that far ahead (or remember that far back)

[August1991]

Most people against abortion don't can't think that far ahead (or remember that far back)

BT, you entirely miss the point here.

While you fear that Stephen Harper will take away the right of certain pregnant women to have an abortion, in fact many pregnant women in Canada do not have access to an abortion clinic because these clinics, and Canada's health system, are state-financed.

[There's a joke in Quebec: A woman must schedule her abortion before she sleeps with a man.]

----

BT, you also miss a graver point about how the State should condone death.

As now but increasingly in the future, modern medicine and drugs will prolong life - but this may be very costly.

So, given the cost, who should live longer?

Edited April 24, 2011 by August1991

[Guest American Woman]

And yet, AW, men are expected to pay child support whether or not they have any contact with the child - merely based on paternity. Moreover, a man can be forced to pay child support even there is no paternity but he has a significant relationship with the child.

Paternity is hardly a "merely" matter; whether the man chooses to have contact with the child or not, he is still the child's father. Child support is for the child's needs, irrespective of the father's active role in the child's life. It's not a cost that the father pays for seeing the child and then withdraws when he doesn't. It's his choice whether he has a relationship with the child or not.

As for having to pay when there is no paternity, that's a Canadian thing; it doesn't happen in America. I've made my views on this quite clear. I think it's ludicrous.

So in a sense, if you smoke and get cancer, if two people have sex and one gets pregnant, or if a man decides to move in with his girlfriend and her kids, then there may be costly consequences. I have no problem with that. Do you?

I already said I disagree with the "moving in with his girlfriend" scenario," and as I already pointed out, the person who smokes and gets cancer does get treatment, so when two people have sex and one gets pregnant, the same criteria should apply, especially in light of Canada's wonderful "stance" regarding abortion. But that's not happening, and that's in part due to the government. So regardless of Canada's "stance," this is an issue that needs to be addressed in Canada. As I said, I can't understand why people aren't making a fuss about it; at least the Tea Party is making their feelings known.

It is hypocritical to say that the State should not condone murder.

For the record, whether or not one believes that preventing a fetus that's unable to survive on its own from developing is akin to killing/taking a life, "murder" is the unlawful taking of a life. So the state does not condone murder; it's not "murder" any more than removing life support is "murder."

[bloodyminded]

So regardless of Canada's "stance," this is an issue that needs to be addressed in Canada. As I said, I can't understand why people aren't making a fuss about it; at least the Tea Party is making their feelings known.

Some people are making a fuss about it; so how is the Tea Party superior to them in this regard? I don't get this.

[Guest American Woman]

Some people are making a fuss about it; so how is the Tea Party superior to them in this regard? I don't get this.

My post, my comments, are in direct response to comments that have been made in this thread, both about the abortion situation in Canada and in the United States and reference to the Tea Party. If there is a "fuss" being made in Canada, people in this thread sure don't seem to be aware of it and it doesn't seem to be an issue in Canada. Perhaps you can point out where the government is doing something/anything to make the reality live up to the stance or to change the stance? Right now it seems to be as August said -- an issue no one wants to acknowledge or touch. excerpts:

In Canada, we're very good at ignoring certain problems or pretending that they don't exist.

In response:

I guess I don't see this as a problem.

Would Canadians really want to go through the conflict and controversy and strife of a public debate on the issue to prevent a situation that really isn't going to happen in the real world anyway? I'm not sure that's a productive use of Parliament's time and energy.

If the Canadian religious right grows enough in size and influence, and the liberal press continues to wither away and be replaced by rightwing talkingheads; then abortion will become an issue here. Harper has to keep these bible thumpers onside for Conservative grassroots campaigning, so I expect that a Conservative majority government will see some bones thrown to them on abortion....but nothing as bold as what the tea party crazies are doing across the border right now.

The accessibility situation would not be improved by national harrassment legislation.

What do you propose needs to be done about it? Redundant laws?

And then, of course, there was your comment about Canada's admirable "stance" on abortion, when I would think the reality would be the concern -- and I'm just not seeing that it is. If some people are speaking out about it, good for them. I've just not seen it as an issue. It appears to me as if it's just as August said it is and it's not Canada's "stance" as such, but Canada's reluctance to define anything, a reluctance to deal with it head on. A reluctance to make it an issue.