Are women in danger of losing their abortion rights?

[Evening Star]

Country population has nothing to do with it, its where people are wanting to go.

This is blatantly wrong, right? Immigration figures are only meaningful in relation to the country's population, surely.

[blueblood]

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

Usa is number 1, why am I not surprised

[kimmy]

But certainly when his or her heart starts beating. Abortion that stops a beating heart is tantamount to infanticide.

Anencephalic babies have beating hearts. Lots of patients with irreparably damaged brains, like Terri Schiavo, have beating hearts. And the magic of modern medicine also allows people to live for considerable lengths of time *without* beating hearts.

So what makes you so sure a beating heart is a great guideline of whether someone is a person?

-k

[Evening Star]

Usa is number 1, why am I not surprised

Only in absolute numbers, not in terms of proportion to the country's population.

[Guest American Woman]

blueblood, on 22 April 2011 - 07:21 PM, said: Usa is number 1, why am I not surprised

Only in absolute numbers, not in terms of proportion to the country's population.

The idea being discussed is where more people most want to move, not which country has the highest percentage of immigrants.

[SF/PF]

The idea being discussed is where more people most want to move, not which country has the highest percentage of immigrants.

In which case, immigration numbers are completely irrelevant. They illustrate where people do move, not where they want to move.

[Molly]

The idea being discussed is where more people most want to move, not which country has the highest percentage of immigrants.

The stats in that link include actual immigrant numbers, the portion of each nations population that is immigrants, and theportion of the worlds immigrants that have chosen that counbtry...

So yes, the US has nice big numbers, but Europe accepts more immigrants than North America and even Latvia has a larger immigrant population as a portion of that country's people. Saudi Arabia beats pit Canada in that category, too.

[RNG]

The stats in that link include actual immigrant numbers, the portion of each nations population that is immigrants, and theportion of the worlds immigrants that have chosen that counbtry...

So yes, the US has nice big numbers, but Europe accepts more immigrants than North America and even Latvia has a larger immigrant population as a portion of that country's people. Saudi Arabia beats pit Canada in that category, too.

1) Do your USA numbers include illegal immigrants from Mexico and other Carribean and South American countries?

2) Does that Saudi beat Canada make you happy?

[RNG]

I love how an abortion thread can evolve to an immigration thread. What fun.

[Guest American Woman]

In which case, immigration numbers are completely irrelevant. They illustrate where people do move, not where they want to move.

I agree. It stands to reason that the population of a nation would be a determining factor in the number of people they'd allow in.

Here's a survey from Gallop regarding how many people would move to another country if they could and where they would choose to live: link

According to the survey, the U.S. is the top choice (nearly one quarter of the respondents would migrate to the U.S.). Add the number who would choose Canada, and North America and the European Union are virtually tied in that regard.

The stats in that link include actual immigrant numbers, the portion of each nations population that is immigrants, and theportion of the worlds immigrants that have chosen that counbtry...

The stats show the portion of the world's immigrants that were accepted into each country, not the portion who have chosen that country. Not everyone who chooses a country is accepted by that country.

So yes, the US has nice big numbers, but Europe accepts more immigrants than North America and even Latvia has a larger immigrant population as a portion of that country's people. Saudi Arabia beats pit Canada in that category, too.

That Europe "accepts more immigrants than North America" isn't relevant to how many people would choose one or the other. As I pointed out, North America and the European Union are basically tied as to the number of people who would chose to move to one or the other.

Edited April 23, 2011 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

My point is that abortion is not simply a matter of personal choice.

-k

And my point is that it is more than personal choice, it's about a woman's right to have autonomy over decisions regarding her body and whether or not she wants another person growing inside it. We'll just have to disagree.

[cybercoma]

Very few things are universally acknowledged to be no one else's business... Forced genital mutilation, for instance, is justified as being a matter of community morality, and thus not abusivee of individual rights.

However, if you are the one facing an abortion decision, you will likely take someone else's self-appointed interest as having no weight, even if they've managed to make their interest official in law. It is simply an unwelcome, unjustified, inhumane intrusion-- a personal offense-- an assault.

[thumb up] cybercoma likes this.

[cybercoma]

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

Of course he can't because it's a legal concept, not a scientific one. The scientific concept is that a fetus is human. Well, of course it is. It's not a horse or a table. Personhood, conceptually, is not a scientific idea.

[SF/PF]

Of course he can't because it's a legal concept, not a scientific one. The scientific concept is that a fetus is human. Well, of course it is. It's not a horse or a table. Personhood, conceptually, is not a scientific idea.

I know that and you know that. But Shady seems to believe otherwise.

[cybercoma]

I know that and you know that. But Shady seems to believe otherwise.

I was saying that for Shady. I realize I'm preaching to the choir by replying directly to you.

[kimmy]

And my point is that it is more than personal choice, it's about a woman's right to have autonomy over decisions regarding her body and whether or not she wants another person growing inside it. We'll just have to disagree.

Ok, look... first of all, that I'm not a pro-lifer. And I'm not a Bible-thumper. People know a bit about my political leanings and just assume things that are completely untrue.

I dislike shoddy arguments. That's why I scoff at Shady's idea that a heartbeat is the difference that separates a person from human tissue. And it's why I don't care for the "violin player" story you referenced earlier. It's a shoddy piece of work. It has a number of flawed premises, the chief of which is to equate pregnancy with imprisonment. The protagonist of the story is in bed, tied to a fully-grown adult male. But how many fetuses are you aware of that weigh 160+ pounds? A pregnant woman enjoys a very high degree of freedom until all but the very latest stages of pregnancy... a point by which even many pro-life people consider abortion to be inappropriate.

And it's that last point where I step off the pro-choice bandwagon, because I don't think abortion should be allowed right up to the last second before delivery. At some point we confer the rights of a person upon a fetus. "Preemies" born at 22 weeks are people and get every chance at life that modern medicine can provide them. A fetus at 38 weeks can legally be aborted. Does that seem right? Do you think that a woman should be able to decide, in the middle of delivery, that she'd like an abortion instead?

If yes, then we obviously will not be able to agree on this. If no, then what point do you think aborting that fetus ceased to be appropriate? When the fetus could survive on its own outside the mother's body without medical help? When the fetus could survive on its own outside the mother's body with medical help? When it began to have brain activity? When its heart began to beat?

I personally believe that a fetus ceases to be "just a blob of human tissue" at some point well before it emerges from the mother's body. I think that deciding that the fetus becomes a person when it takes its first breath is way more bone-headed than Shady's view that it becomes a person when its heart begins to beat, yet that's what our law says. Which is stupid. It's not that first breath of air, or the severing of the umbilical cord, or the water breaking, that transforms a fetus from "a blob of human tissue" into a sentient human being. And when we reach that distinction it's time to stop talking about it being just a matter of a woman's freedom or personal choice. A sentient human being should not be killed without compelling reason. "It's not convenient for me" is not particularly compelling when she has had months to come to that decision.

I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that abortions past a certain stage of development should be prohibited except by medical necessity. The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester anyway.

-k

[cybercoma]

I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that abortions past a certain stage of development should be prohibited except by medical necessity. The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester anyway.

-k

Then we agree, bearing in mind that late-term abortions are extremely rare since most doctors will not perform them unless the mother's life is in serious danger. The vast majority of abortions occur before 12 weeks, with the bulk of those before 10 weeks. When people are vocally opposed to abortions, this is what they're opposing, since late-term abortions, as a rule, only happen in critical circumstances.

I only brought up Judith Jarvis Thomson's argument because it is about the ethics of personhood and abortion, and I will leave it at that, since we do not see eye-to-eye on the allegory.

For the record, I didn't assume you were a pro-lifer or a bible-thumper, nor do I know much about your political leanings. All I do know from your posts is that you don't seem to fit nicely into any particular category. I couldn't give you a label if I tried.

Edited April 23, 2011 by cybercoma

[ToadBrother]

I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that abortions past a certain stage of development should be prohibited except by medical necessity. The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester anyway.

-k

So I take it you'll be demanding birth and death certificates for late-stage stillbirths, as well as all the other rights that traditionally accompanied a live birth, right? Parents of stillbirths will have to provide a name, register the birth, and all those things.

[cybercoma]

So I take it you'll be demanding birth and death certificates for late-stage stillbirths, as well as all the other rights that traditionally accompanied a live birth, right? Parents of stillbirths will have to provide a name, register the birth, and all those things.

You're arguing a non-issue. I don't know why you're hung up on stillbirths, but we're talking about the choice to abort a fetus here. I think it's reasonable, even as a supporter of pro-choice that a person who waits until the third trimester ought to be limited in their ability to secure an abortion. Clinics won't perform them and most medical doctors will not perform them, unless the mother's life is in danger. They are exceedingly rare as well, so there's no point in even discussing it. Making a law limiting someone's ability to have a late-term abortion would simply be codifying what already happens.

[Harry]

This abortion issue combined with the NDP surge has certainly thrown a kink into the plans for a majority.

Does Harper hear echoes of '04 in backbench MP's remarks?

Trost said in a speech to the Saskatchewan Pro-Life Association this month that petitions by anti-abortion advocates have been "very, very useful and they were part of what we used to defund Planned Parenthood."

"Now, you should know, they're still trying to get their snout back in the public trough," added Trost, who is running for re-election in the riding of Saskatoon-Humboldt.

Harper was quick on Thursday to downplay Trost's comments about Planned Parenthood and to reiterate his party's view that revisiting the abortion issue is "not the priority of the Canadian people, or of this government."

But the organization's multimillion-dollar funding application remains in limbo, and — just as in 2004 — opposition parties were pointing Thursday to an outlier MP's unexpected remarks to revive the "hidden agenda" charge against the Conservatives, and to try to halt Harper's momentum ahead of election day.

While the impact of Trost's comments on the current campaign remains unclear, the effect of White's out-of-right-field remarks on the 2004 election have been well documented.

In Harper's Team, a 2007 chronicle of the Conservative rise to power by the party's 2004 campaign manager, Tom Flanagan, White's "notwithstanding" outburst was described as an "enormously damaging" factor in Harper's attempt to topple Martin and become prime minister. The Liberals were re-elected with a minority government.

"The interview was perfect for the Liberals because it seemed to show that Harper really did have a hidden agenda; his carefully crafted positions on abortion, gay marriage, and perhaps other issues, were just for show, and the real Harper would come out of the box if he won the election," Flanagan, a University of Calgary political scientist, wrote.

"It was a powerful message to take into the final weekend when, traditionally, about 25 per cent of voters make up their minds."

Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/decision-canada/Does+Harper+hear+echoes+backbench+remarks/4656444/story.html#ixzz1KJvjzaTh

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/decision-canada/Does+Harper+hear+echoes+backbench+remarks/4656444/story.html

Edited April 23, 2011 by Harry

[kimmy]

Then we agree, bearing in mind that late-term abortions are extremely rare since most doctors will not perform them unless the mother's life is in serious danger. The vast majority of abortions occur before 12 weeks, with the bulk of those before 10 weeks. When people are vocally opposed to abortions, this is what they're opposing, since late-term abortions, as a rule, only happen in critical circumstances.

That's true, and I'm not suggesting that there's some epidemic of late-term abortions that's sweeping the land and we have to stop them before it's too late. What I am arguing is that I feel (and I think you agree, and probably most people including most doctors and most pro-choice people agree) that some point in a fetus's development abortion is no longer appropriate. I think most of us feel that at some point it stops being just the woman's choice and that killing a fetus past a certain stage of development is wrong.

Shady feels the same... but in his view that stage is at about 5 weeks instead of 22 or 26 weeks.

Deciding where that point actually is is a matter of personal opinion, not a matter of hard science.

So I take it you'll be demanding birth and death certificates for late-stage stillbirths, as well as all the other rights that traditionally accompanied a live birth, right? Parents of stillbirths will have to provide a name, register the birth, and all those things.

Perhaps if I was arguing for a fetus to be declared a person you'd have a point.

-k

[cybercoma]

I agree with you kimmy, but I think where we depart is that I don't believe the state should be in the business of deciding where that point in the pregnancy is. That decisions, I believe, is a personal one that should be made by the mother and her doctor(s).

By the bye, I'm not trying to have a pissing match here. I think it's a matter of differing nuances on a similar answer.

edit: nevermind... I reread your post and we're saying the same thing. Give me a break it's 3am.

Edited April 23, 2011 by cybercoma

[bloodyminded]

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.

Actually, there is no right to stop a woman from having an abortion. Deal with it.

[bloodyminded]

I got the joke.

My point is people are taking the position that being anti-abortion is an obvious vote loser. At the same time, a larger percentage supports the idea of cutting planned parenthood funding than actually supports the Conservatives.

A larger percentage of online readers of that particular story at this particular time, you mean.

[bloodyminded]

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.

Or based on the woman's a priori decision--which could be a lie as easily as the truth--of whether she was planning to terminate or to continue the pregnancy.