Abortion revisited

[bleeding heart]

Maybe not in our Anglo-Saxon enlightened world. But as the doors of this country are opened to people that don't have the same values as we do, you can definitely see it happening.

Isn't there a shortage of women in China because the parents there only want men?

Yes...but you can throw together any discussion you want, to try make "the left" look bad. "Feminists," and"Canadian women" generally, are not having abortions based on gender.

And if "you can definitely see it happening"...show us.

And such is not the point...neither for those of us who support or oppose the freedom to choose.

For example, you know what's wrong with conservatives? Well, the Taliban are conservatives....so...there you go!

(You see how unreasonable this line of argument is?)

Edited April 27, 2012 by bleeding heart

[jacee]

You won't get people "on the ends" to engage reasonably in many cases.

The people in the middle can be prepared for reasonable discussion but the problem is:

- The details of the debate are entirely mundane and not of interest to most

- "The public" (whatever that means) is used to this discussion being framed around two simple choices

- Somehow the discussion of service delivery here has become wrapped in identity issues

- The agendas at play are huge on all sides

So how can "we" discuss the issues when we have complicated questions that need one-on-one discussion, and an interested public that can make informed choices ?

We can't, with the tools we have. We have mass media, which are owned or controlled by large interests without the presence of an informed public to discern information and make choices.

How do we fix this ? To my mind we need to create a new public to debate healthcare. It's a strange idea, but we have to create a forum whereby choices can be discussed openly and 3rd-way solutions can be synthesized.

Can't fix it that way. A woman's decision is between her and her doctor and it's nobody else's business.

In particular, men don't have a say in this. And it's always men who bring it up and think it's their business and it's NOT. Once the sperm leaves their body, their choice has been made.

And certainly the state has no business in the wombs of the nation.

Edited April 27, 2012 by jacee

[Boges]

Can't fix it that way. A woman's decision is between her and her doctor and it's nobody else's business.

In particular, men don't have a say in this. And it's always men who bring it up and think it's their business and it's NOT. Once the sperm leaves their body, their choice has been made.

And certainly the state has no business in the wombs of the nation.

So only women can debate the issue then? So you should tell men that support a woman's right to choose to stfu.

But you should also entertain a debate with other women who have reservations about abortion.

Only logical right?

Edited April 27, 2012 by Boges

[Michael Hardner]

Can't fix it that way. A woman's decision is between her and her doctor and it's nobody else's business.

In particular, men don't have a say in this. And it's always men who bring it up and think it's their business and it's NOT. Once the sperm leaves their body, their choice has been made.

And certainly the state has no business in the wombs of the nation.

Men don't have a say in healthcare ? I was talking about healthcare.

I don't know what it means when we say "men don't have a say in this" ? Do we mean that they don't get to vote, discuss, participate in the judicial process ? Of course they do. Does it mean that they shouldn't give their opinion ? They share in the responsibilities and consequences of these policies, so they should be included in those discussions.

I don't think men should or do have any say in the decision that a woman makes to have any medical procedure done.

[bush_cheney2004]

...I don't think men should or do have any say in the decision that a woman makes to have any medical procedure done.

But they do....many of the associated doctors are...men, and they get to make choices too.

[Guest American Woman]

Can't fix it that way. A woman's decision is between her and her doctor and it's nobody else's business.

I actually think it's the "business" of the father of the child. That's not to say he gets to make the final decision, but to say it's none of his business is a bit harsh. Some men couldn't care less about the children they father, and other men care very much. I feel for these men, even as I recognize that the final decision is the woman's.

In particular, men don't have a say in this. And it's always men who bring it up and think it's their business and it's NOT. Once the sperm leaves their body, their choice has been made.

Its' not always men who bring it up; far from it. Many women have very strong feelings about it and don't believe it's a choice that should be available.

And certainly the state has no business in the wombs of the nation.

It does in so far that it pays for the procedure, does it not? Certainly the state has a right to govern and protect the rights of a would-be child. A woman who gives birth and leaves the baby to die is prosecuted, so do you think it would make it all right if she aborted that same viable fetus before it left the womb? What about when a woman goes into labor - is it still ok to abort? These, I believe, are issues that are the state's business.

[dre]

I'm not really against this...

Canada has no abortion laws.

It's not that it is illegal.

It's not that it is legal.

It's just not legislated. It's a grey area without any limits.

Many civilized nations won't give abortions when the baby could survive outside of the womb (24 weeks).

In Canada, you could abort the baby the day before it is born...

Personally, if people want to abort, I say sure. I mean, it's really just darwin at work, limiting those genes from the gene pool.

But, maybe we should have some ethical/sensible limits on it.

But, maybe we should have some ethical/sensible limits on it.

If a need for them arises then sure. But so far our system is to train ethical doctors and handle those as decisions between the doctor and the parent. And from what I can tell these super late term abortions rarely even happen.

Why on earth would you even wanna pay a bunch of politicians to have this discussion? We have lots of real pressing problems for them to work on...

[fellowtraveller]

Certainly the state has a right to govern and protect the rights of a would-be child. A woman who gives birth and leaves the baby to die is prosecuted, so do you think it would make it all right if she aborted that same viable fetus before it left the womb? What about when a woman goes into labor - is it still ok to abort? These, I believe, are issues that are the state's business.

You are speaking from the American perspective, which is a legal viewpoint. The Candian view is that it is a medical procedure, period. We don't get involved as leguislators in medical procedures. It drives the prolife crew here completely bananas, they just cannot get any legal traction at all.

Would- be -children are what, exactly?

What is a viable fetus? One minute? One day? a sperm? an egg? any piece of human DNAS that could be cloned?

Our local abortion clinic(who do all routine abortions, the hospitals don't do any) does not do late term abortions for-wait for it- medical reasons, they are not set up for serious surgery like that.

And hospitals very rarely do them, generally only in cases where there is real risk to the mother.

[Guest American Woman]

You are speaking from the American perspective, which is a legal viewpoint.

I'm speaking from my perspective, which is my viewpoint.

The Candian view is that it is a medical procedure, period. We don't get involved as leguislators in medical procedures.

By "the Canadian viewpoint," are you saying that this is what all Canadians believe? That the government is all in agreement? - at every level? - in every province? What/who, exactly, defines the Canadian view?

It drives the prolife crew here completely bananas, they just cannot get any legal traction at all.

Would- be -children are what, exactly?

What is a viable fetus? One minute? One day? a sperm? an egg? any piece of human DNAS that could be cloned?

All of your questions just confirm that there should be some legal stipulations.

Our local abortion clinic(who do all routine abortions, the hospitals don't do any) does not do late term abortions for-wait for it- medical reasons, they are not set up for serious surgery like that.

And hospitals very rarely do them, generally only in cases where there is real risk to the mother.

Why aren't hospitals set up for serious surgery like that? Surely they are set up for other serious surgeries. Does the state require that access to other serious surgeries be provided? - are there any guidelines regarding the availability of medical procedures?

[dre]

All of your questions just confirm that there should be some legal stipulations.

No they dont. Politicians have nothing usefull to bring to that discussion. No expertise, no relevant skills etc.

These decisions should be made by medical professionals, and their patients... And that seems to work quite well, and late term abortions are extremely rare.

Theres some things the government should stay out of. Trying to legislation one groups opinion about this on everyone else would be a huge mistake, and it would just fan the flames of the culture war and make politics even more divisive. It would hurt our political system, and medical system at the same time.

The best possible people to make these decisions are already making them.

Why aren't hospitals set up for serious surgery like that?

Nobody said that.

Edited April 28, 2012 by dre

[Savant]

Canada has no abortion laws. It's not that it is illegal. It's not that it is legal. ... Many civilized nations won't give abortions when the baby could survive outside of the womb (24 weeks). In Canada, you could abort the baby the day before it is born...

That's the bottom line here.

Some people suugest there should be no restrictions on abortion, but there already ARE restrictions on abortion. As you noted, there isn't a doctor in the civilized world that would 'abort' (kill) an unborn child in the 9th month of pregnancy. The child would be deleivered prematurely.

Could a woman go into an abortion clinic a few days before delivery and get an abortion? No. So in reality there already are defacto 'prohibitions' regarding abortion in Canada.

The problem is that there are no rules. If there isn't a single doctor in Canada that would perform an abortion at XX weeks, then would a law that restricts abortion to that point impact a "woman's right to choose"...? (For XX you can insert whatever number that doctors agree on that they would never perform an abortion at that point or later. I left the number out on purpose so that we wouldn't get off track debating a number.)

There is a black hole in the law books right now, this is something that should be rectified.

[dre]

That's the bottom line here.

Some people suugest there should be no restrictions on abortion, but there already ARE restrictions on abortion. As you noted, there isn't a doctor in the civilized world that would 'abort' (kill) an unborn child in the 9th month of pregnancy. The child would be deleivered prematurely.

Could a woman go into an abortion clinic a few days before delivery and get an abortion? No. So in reality there already are defacto 'prohibitions' regarding abortion in Canada.

The problem is that there are no rules. If there isn't a single doctor in Canada that would perform an abortion at XX weeks, then would a law that restricts abortion to that point impact a "woman's right to choose"...? (For XX you can insert whatever number that doctors agree on that they would never perform an abortion at that point or later. I left the number out on purpose so that we wouldn't get off track debating a number.)

There is a black hole in the law books right now, this is something that should be rectified.

The problem is that there are no rules.

I dont see why thats a problem if this isnt happening anyways.

[Savant]

The problem is that there are no rules.

I dont see why thats a problem if (very late term abortion) isnt happening anyways.

That cuts both ways now doesn't it? One could also say 'why is there a problem with discussing new laws' when such a proposed law would not actually ban abortion completely.

Laws are there for a reason. While no ethical doctor in Canada would extract a person's kidney and sell it, we still have laws against that. There are many more examples I could use...

In the end I really don't see why we can't have a rational discussion about the issue.

[The_Squid]

I encourage the Conservatives to open up this debate and introduce legislation on how they want the laws to be around abortion. Then let's see what happens in the next election.

[fellowtraveller]

By "the Canadian viewpoint," are you saying that this is what all Canadians believe? That the government is all in agreement? - at every level? - in every province? What/who, exactly, defines the Canadian view?

Your view is that it belongs in the courts, that has not applied here. Your viewpoint may be personal, but it is also the American approach to abortion: litigate. It is the viewpoint of the CDN Supreme Court from 1988 onward, and in the non-action by the federal govt since. Like that. Your collective love of litigation just does not carry here.

All of your questions just confirm that there should be some legal stipulations.

No, it just confirms what I saidf above about litigation. You can bet your ass and mine that prolifers in Canada would love getting anything to do with abortion into the court system. Good luck with that here sister.

Why aren't hospitals set up for serious surgery like that? Surely they are set up for other serious surgeries. Does the state require that access to other serious surgeries be provided? - are there any guidelines regarding the availability of medical procedures?

Your response does not in any way match what I stated. Please try again.

[fellowtraveller]

I encourage the Conservatives to open up this debate and introduce legislation on how they want the laws to be around abortion. Then let's see what happens in the next election.

Yeah, you wish! Never happen. Nobody since the 80s has been dumb enough to go anywhere near it.

[dre]

That cuts both ways now doesn't it? One could also say 'why is there a problem with discussing new laws' when such a proposed law would not actually ban abortion completely.

Laws are there for a reason. While no ethical doctor in Canada would extract a person's kidney and sell it, we still have laws against that. There are many more examples I could use...

In the end I really don't see why we can't have a rational discussion about the issue.

Laws against selling kidneys address an actual problem. Theres a black market for human organs around the world.

Legislators shouldnt sit around thinking up laws about hypotheticals and what might happen. They should address actual problems.

[bush_cheney2004]

Laws against selling kidneys address an actual problem. Theres a black market for human organs around the world.

Wait a minute...what happened to having total control over one's body...a la abortion on demand?

[Guest American Woman]

Your view is that it belongs in the courts, that has not applied here. Your viewpoint may be personal, but it is also the American approach to abortion: litigate. It is the viewpoint of the CDN Supreme Court from 1988 onward, and in the non-action by the federal govt since. Like that. Your collective love of litigation just does not carry here.

Oh, Canada has a real love of litigation. It's just avoiding the abortion issue by sending women to the States. Let it be our problem, eh?

No, it just confirms what I saidf above about litigation. You can bet your ass and mine that prolifers in Canada would love getting anything to do with abortion into the court system. Good luck with that here sister.

The fact that it's "not in the courts" actually means very little - other than allowing people to bury their heads in the sand. Canada doesn't even require that the weeks of gestation be recorded when an abortion is performed, yet we have Canadians saying "that just doesn't happen here!" There's absolutely no way of knowing. Ignorance is, indeed, bliss. But if you're ok with a woman being allowed to abort at any time, for any reason, that's you're prerogative - and basically, that's what Canada is allowing. And yes, I do believe that should be legislated - just as the issue of abandoning a baby at birth to die has been taken up in the courts. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if Canada doesn't ever address it. I'm beginning to see a pattern in Canada along those lines.

Your response does not in any way match what I stated. Please try again.

My response "matched" exactly what you said. It just doesn't support it. Big difference.

[Argus]

Maybe it becomes illegal after the ultrasound that determines sex?

For some reason, I don't think women will support killing future women...

They do it thousands of times a day in places like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and China.

[Argus]

Laws against selling kidneys address an actual problem. Theres a black market for human organs around the world.

Legislators shouldnt sit around thinking up laws about hypotheticals and what might happen. They should address actual problems.

So you know for a fact that it hasn't ever happened and won't ever happen? You know the details of every abortion done in Canada over the past few years?

[dre]

So you know for a fact that it hasn't ever happened and won't ever happen? You know the details of every abortion done in Canada over the past few years?

No, but based on the research I was able to do, its extremely rare, and the people in charge of making these decisions do a good job. And writing laws would not guarantee that it "wont ever happen" either.

Besides as I said before the government has nothing to bring to the table here. They have no relavent skillsets, knowledge, or perspective that would justify them imposing their will on Doctors who not only devote most of their early lives to becoming experts in these matters, but recieve a lot of training and guidance on the ethics of medical decisions as well.

[fellowtraveller]

Oh, Canada has a real love of litigation. It's just avoiding the abortion issue by sending women to the States. Let it be our problem, eh?

Plenty of abortions and plenty of prolifers here, nothing in the courts. You lose. Why would anybody go the Sates for an abortion? Woemn here go to the Morgenthaler clinic on 124th St for a free, professional abortion. Doies it suck to know that?

There's absolutely no way of knowing

Why would you say something so utterly ignorant of the facts. The local abortion clinic(staffed by licensed doctors and nurses, including a relative) do abortions there to 16 weeks. After that, they are referred to a hospital who make their own medical determination on the procedure. The term limit is because the abortion clinic does not have the surgical facilities or backup avaiable in any hospital.

And yes, I do believe that should be legislated

You mean litigated, right? injunctions, delays, appeals, huge expense, massive lobby efforts- the usual prolife circus. Ain't gonna happen here, get over it.

My response "matched" exactly what you said.

OK, you are right, Canadian hospitals have no capacity for surgery. We are a backward people. I feel shame.

[Guest American Woman]

Plenty of abortions and plenty of prolifers here, nothing in the courts. You lose. Why would anybody go the Sates for an abortion? Woemn here go to the Morgenthaler clinic on 124th St for a free, professional abortion. Doies it suck to know that?

Sorry, but Canadian women are sent to the States for abortions.

Pregnant mothers from Quebec whose unborn children are beyond 24 weeks gestation, are being sent to Wichita, Kansas for late-term abortions, at the private clinic of controversial abortionist George Tiller. Each procedure costs Canadian taxpayers at least $5000.00 U.S.

Last year 30 Quebec late-term abortions were committed in Kansas and New York.

Does it suck to know that? It should. It's your tax dollars, not mine.

Why would you say something so utterly ignorant of the facts.

It's not ignorant of the facts; quite the opposite.

The local abortion clinic(staffed by licensed doctors and nurses, including a relative) do abortions there to 16 weeks. After that, they are referred to a hospital who make their own medical determination on the procedure.

They're not required to record the week of gestation when performing an abortion.

The term limit is because the abortion clinic does not have the surgical facilities or backup avaiable in any hospital.

What's your point? I realize that Canada has no limitations regarding the week of gestation, and my opinion is that there should be. That's been my point.

You mean litigated, right? injunctions, delays, appeals, huge expense, massive lobby efforts- the usual prolife circus. Ain't gonna happen here, get over it.

What is there for me to get over? I'm stating my opinion. It's what people do on a forum. Even Americans on Canadian boards regarding Canadian issues. Get over it.

OK, you are right, Canadian hospitals have no capacity for surgery. We are a backward people. I feel shame.

As you should.

[fellowtraveller]

Does it suck to know that? It should. It's your tax dollars, not mine.

No problem from me, if a doctor and a patient determine that a medical procedure is required, I am happy to pay via taxes. We are a compassionate people, we don't have tens of millions of uninsured and underinsured hiumans treated like dogs. Nobody challenges what my doctor and I decide is appropriate for me either.

abortions were committed

Straight from your Pro Life handbook, eh? I thought so.....

They're not required to record the week of gestation when performing an abortion.

They do not perform them at all at the local abortion clinic beyond then, they refer them to a facility that is equipped to do them if the doctor and patient agree it is necessary. Both hospital and clinic are about 500 kms from the Amerikkkan border.

Canada has no limitations

It gets worse for you.... not only does Canada have no effective abortion law, as long as it is defined as a 'medical procedure' and not a moral flashpoint, there won't be any law because each province has the responsibility to provide medical procedures- not Ottawa. Edited April 30, 2012 by fellowtraveller