Are women in danger of losing their abortion rights?

Evening Star · April 22, 2011

There are arguments that the Nordic model is good for entrepreneurship: http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110201/in-norway-start-ups-say-ja-to-socialism.html

Mr.Canada · April 22, 2011

If the Tories even attempted this it would be the last time they were ever in power for a very long time. No matter how they may feel about it personally it would never make to be policy....never.

blueblood · April 22, 2011

There are arguments that the Nordic model is good for entrepreneurship: http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110201/in-norway-start-ups-say-ja-to-socialism.html

Entrepreneurship isn't about starting a business in a garage and keeping it that size. Its about starting a business, and growing that business as big as one wants. It also means that if the business fails, then blow it up and start all over again and learn from your mistakes. High taxes and wealth distribution aren't a part of it.

All the nordic model does is distort the market to prop up businesses that shouldn't be in operation, while at the same time hindering successful businesses with high taxes to prop up what should be failed businesses.

Evening Star · April 22, 2011

We discussed it here: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17862

There are many examples of hugely successful corporations from the Nordic countries (obvious ones like Ikea, Volvo, H&M, Saab, Nokia, Bohor, Propellerheads, 3H, Ericsson Audio, Digital Illusions, Electrolux), especially considering the countries' tiny populations.

Shady · April 22, 2011

And so this is why the CPC should never get a majority, I suppose. Because, amongst the supporters at least, there really is a hidden agenda.

No. Like I've already posted earlier. My preference would be regulations regarding late-term abortions, and possibly parental notification for children. Which are views held by a majority of Canaidans.

On a serpate topic. Do people know that abortion and breast exams are covered in Ontario, but prostate exams and vasectomies are not. That seems a little unfair. I'm not sure how it is in other provinces.

ToadBrother · April 22, 2011

It's not about some right to choose in general. Every woman has a right to choose. They choose what they wear, go to work, who they marry, or not marry, what they eat, etc, etc. What people like you refer to is a right to choose to kill an unborn child. There is no such right to choose to kill another human being. Deal with it.

You're assuming your conclusion. Nothing in law says a fetus is a person. We've been through this in other places. Stillbirths don't get birth certificates or death certificates, at best hospitals track the numbers of health and statistical purposes. Even when abortions were illegal no one got charged with murder for performing one, no mother was charged as an accessory to murder or with conspiracy to commit murder.

To put it bluntly, fetuses are not persons in a legal sense of the word, and never were.

ToadBrother · April 22, 2011

If the Tories even attempted this it would be the last time they were ever in power for a very long time. No matter how they may feel about it personally it would never make to be policy....never.

It's pure pragmatism that governs this. No one wants this debate, except a few hardliners. Let's also remember here that these hardliners exist in every party, but no Prime Minister of any stripe is going to take his government down that path. It's so divisive, so likely to cause dangerous fractures not just in the wider society but in the party itself, that, whatever the personal feelings of the majority of any given party, there's no benefit to rekindling it.

blueblood · April 22, 2011

We discussed it here: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17862

There are many examples of hugely successful corporations from the Nordic countries (obvious ones like Ikea, Volvo, H&M, Saab, Nokia, Bohor, Propellerheads, 3H, Ericsson Audio, Digital Illusions, Electrolux), especially considering the countries' tiny populations.

And there are many more in north america. Population has nothing to so with it. Why do so many people choose to come to north america vs scandinavia?

Some of those companies you note are in trouble themselves...

April 22, 2011

Nothing in law says a fetus is a person. We've been through this in other places. Stillbirths don't get birth certificates or death certificates, at best hospitals track the numbers of health and statistical purposes. Even when abortions were illegal no one got charged with murder for performing one, no mother was charged as an accessory to murder or with conspiracy to commit murder.

To put it bluntly, fetuses are not persons in a legal sense of the word, and never were.

We can't get life insurance policies on an embryo/fetus, either, nor can they be claimed as a deduction on our tax returns. Women can't collect child support for an embryo/fetus, either. Furthermore, we can't freeze or dispose of people but we can and do freeze and dispose of embryos.

Evening Star · April 22, 2011

This is probably the wrong thread for this but

Why do so many people choose to come to north america vs scandinavia?

I'm guessing that two factors are i) immigration laws and ii) the number of people in the world who speak English or French (or Spanish) as opposed to Swedish or Norwegian or Finnish.

Shady · April 22, 2011

Nothing in law says a fetus is a person.

I agree. The law doesn't say that a fetus is a person. It's similar to pre-civil war time in America, when Blacks were considered 2/3 of a person. My assertion is based on science.

Stillbirths don't get birth certificates or death certificates, at best hospitals track the numbers of health and statistical purposes

Actually, in Ontario, stillbirths are still registered. They also receive a health number.

Even when abortions were illegal no one got charged with murder for performing one, no mother was charged as an accessory to murder or with conspiracy to commit murder.

Nobody's suggesting they should be.

To put it bluntly, fetuses are not persons in a legal sense of the word, and never were.

Actually, in some cases they are. Take for instance a pregnant woman that is murdered. There have been several instances of the accused being charged and convicted for the murder of two people.

Shady · April 22, 2011

We can't get life insurance policies on an embryo/fetus, either, nor can they be claimed as a deduction on our tax returns. Women can't collect child support for an embryo/fetus, either.

That's all well and good, but it doesn't mean it's right, and it doesn't discount what science tells us.

Furthermore, we can't freeze or dispose of people but we can and do freeze and dispose of embryos.

An Embryo is different than a fetus.

Evening Star · April 22, 2011

Nobody's suggesting they should be.

That does seem to be the logical conclusion of the premise that a foetus is a person though.

ToadBrother · April 22, 2011

I agree. The law doesn't say that a fetus is a person. It's similar to pre-civil war time in America, when Blacks were considered 2/3 of a person. My assertion is based on science.

"Personhood" is not a scientific term. Science can tell you if a fetus is human (as in H. sapiens), but personhood is a moral and ethical matter, not a scientific one.

Actually, in Ontario, stillbirths are still registered. They also receive a health number.

I'm aware that some jurisdictions there is a more formalized tracking process, but it still isn't a birth or death certificate, which are only issued to those who are considered, legally, people. In the Common Law, that was basically the product of a live birth, even if the baby on lived a short time. Stillbirths have no such recognition. They are not persons.

Nobody's suggesting they should be

But if a fetus is a person, then abortion is murder, and a mother seeking out an abortion is conspiring to commit murder and the nurse and staff of the doctor performing the abortion are accessories.

Actually, in some cases they are. Take for instance a pregnant woman that is murdered. There have been several instances of the accused being charged and convicted for the murder of two people.

That is a tricky matter, and in jurisdictions where there are fetal murder charges, it only complicates the matter. Still, the fetus still is not given a birth or death certificate.

Edited April 22, 2011 by ToadBrother

SF/PF · April 22, 2011

I agree. The law doesn't say that a fetus is a person. It's similar to pre-civil war time in America, when Blacks were considered 2/3 of a person. My assertion is based on science.

Can you cite a publication in a peer reviewed scientific journal that establishes (or even claims) that fetuses are persons?

Shady · April 22, 2011

That does seem to be the logical conclusion of the premise that a foetus is a person though.

I wouldn't suggest that from the beginning a fetus is a human being. But certainly when his or her heart starts beating. Abortion that stops a beating heart is tantamount to infanticide. Have an abortion before the fetus develops to that point, or have the child. It's perfectly logical.

April 22, 2011

That's all well and good, but it doesn't mean it's right, and it doesn't discount what science tells us.

An Embryo is different than a fetus.

So you don't oppose the abortion of embryos? If you're going to take the "science says...." stance, you need to be consistent.

Science has quite clearly and decidedly proven that human life begins at conception.... link

ToadBrother · April 22, 2011

I wouldn't suggest that from the beginning a fetus is a human being. But certainly when his or her heart starts beating. Abortion that stops a beating heart is tantamount to infanticide. Have an abortion before the fetus develops to that point, or have the child. It's perfectly logical.

So you arbitrarily pick a point and then declare that the point of personhood? And you claim that somehow science is on your side? Your position is self-serving at best, and inherently bizarre. It's almost Medievalist in the notion that the heart is some special kind of organ carrying greater weight than just pumping blood.

Shady · April 22, 2011

That is a tricky matter, and in jurisdictions where there are fetal murder charges, it only complicates the matter.

It's not a tricky matter at all. It's perfectly logical. Especially when other laws exist that charge individuals for killing endangered animals. If one destroys an existing egg. Somehow we have reconciled that destroying the egg of a bald eagle is tantamount to killing a bald eagle. But we refuse to transfer the same logic to human beings. Why? Mostly out of convenience. It's a lot easier and much more convenient to employ abortion on demand, and ignore science and ask questions later.

So you don't oppose the abortion of embryos? If you're going to take the "science says...." stance, you need to be consistent.

Science has quite clearly and decidedly proven that human life begins at conception.... link

Yes, the process begins at conception. But until an embryo is implanted on the uterine wall, the process is null, and therefore no life can develop.

So you arbitrarily pick a point and then declare that the point of personhood?

I don't think the point is arbitrary at all. I'd say it's a very important distinction between human beings alive, and those that are not. :rolleyes:

wyly · April 22, 2011

And there are many more in north america. Population has nothing to so with it. Why do so many people choose to come to north america vs scandinavia?

I get tired of hearing this, canadians are as ignorant as americans on this, both think that they're the center of the universe and immigration happens nowhere but there...europe like many countries has lineups of potential immigrants numbering in the millions trying to enter ..and hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants...sweden takes in 100,000 immigrants per year with a population nearly one quarter of Canada's, canada would need to double if not triple our immigration rates to match Sweden's intake...

Some of those companies you note are in trouble themselves...

unlike GM and Chrysler

TimG · April 22, 2011

sweden takes in 100,000 immigrants per year with a population nearly one quarter of Canada's, canada would need to double if not triple our immigration rates to match Sweden's intake

Any that rate of immigration has created huge problems for Sweden:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/world/europe/27sweden.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&hp

ToadBrother · April 22, 2011

It's not a tricky matter at all. It's perfectly logical. Especially when other laws exist that charge individuals for killing endangered animals. If one destroys an existing egg. Somehow we have reconciled that destroying the egg of a bald eagle is tantamount to killing a bald eagle. But we refuse to transfer the same logic to human beings. Why? Mostly out of convenience. It's a lot easier and much more convenient to employ abortion on demand, and ignore science and ask questions later.

It creates a bizarre dichotomy in which you can lay a murder charge if the person destroying the fetus had ill intent as opposed to getting a cheque from the HMO to perform the procedure.

I don't think the point is arbitrary at all. I'd say it's a very important distinction between human beings alive, and those that are not.

Why not pick any other of the number of major developmental stages? I could almost see the point, for instance, of the point where pain can be felt or where there is the first signs of neurological activity, which at least have some relationship to neural development. But the heart?

Frankly I think you're just picking a point sufficiently close to conception that it all but makes abortions illegal, and one that has some sort of emotional heartstrings value to it. The fetal heart starts beating at approximately 21 days and regular rhythm at 36 to 42 days. In other words, your "standard" would, in many cases, ban abortion before many women were aware they were pregnant.

What forums do you hang around on where you fool people with such pathetic tricks?

Edited April 22, 2011 by ToadBrother

April 22, 2011

It's not a tricky matter at all. It's perfectly logical. Especially when other laws exist that charge individuals for killing endangered animals. If one destroys an existing egg.

Can you provide evidence that someone was charged with "killing endangered animals" for destroying an existing egg vs. being charged with interfering with the continuation of an endangered species?

Somehow we have reconciled that destroying the egg of a bald eagle is tantamount to killing a bald eagle.

Again, I'd like some proof that destroying the egg of a bald eagle is tantamount to "killing a bald eagle" rather than tantamount to interference with an endangered species.

Yes, the process begins at conception. But until an embryo is implanted on the uterine wall, the process is null, and therefore no life can develop.

The article I linked to says life begins at conception, and there are no "buts." As I said, if you're going to use the "science says...." argument, you have to be consistent; you can't be applying your exceptions at your convenience.

There is no more appropriate moment to begin calling a human "human" than the moment of fertilization. And don't let anyone tell you otherwise, because it would be a degradation of factual embryology to say it would be any other moment. For example, some pro-abortion zealots and even, shockingly, some disingenuous physicians claim it is the moment of primitive notochord formation (nonsense!) or, even more absurdly, the moment of implantation. link (emphasis mine)

I don't think the point is arbitrary at all. I'd say it's a very important distinction between human beings alive, and those that are not.

I'd say not being able to exist without a host body and being able to exist without a host body is a very important distinction between beings who are drawing breath and those who are not.

Edited April 23, 2011 by American Woman

blueblood · April 22, 2011

I get tired of hearing this, canadians are as ignorant as americans on this, both think that they're the center of the universe and immigration happens nowhere but there...europe like many countries has lineups of potential immigrants numbering in the millions trying to enter ..and hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants...sweden takes in 100,000 immigrants per year with a population nearly one quarter of Canada's, canada would need to double if not triple our immigration rates to match Sweden's intake...

unlike GM and Chrysler

And there our friends to the south... They take in per year what sweden has on their waiting list. Country population has nothing to do with it, its where people are wanting to go. The fact is north america has been and always will be the place to go. Being a land of opportunity does that.

Molly · April 23, 2011

And there our friends to the south... They take in per year what sweden has on their waiting list. Country population has nothing to do with it, its where people are wanting to go. The fact is north america has been and always will be the place to go. Being a land of opportunity does that.

Seriously... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant_population