Motion 312 vote coming soon!

[kraychik]

There is no way to prevent it. If there is a law against gender-choice abortions, then parents that want to abort a child based on gender will just give some other reason to the doctor to hide their true reasons. You can't read people's minds to check. Nor should the government impose laws that prevent doctors from disclosing to their patients the gender of their child during pregnancy. The overall right of people to have abortions should not be impeded by the primitive cultural leanings of an immigrant minority.

The real solution is to stop bringing in hundreds of thousands of people from primitive cultures that would want to carry out such a practice in the first place.

Well said from the perspective of someone who supports access to abortion. You're gonna be accused of being a Nazi in three... two.... one....

Edited October 6, 2012 by kraychik

[Smallc]

I know you were.

It's a zygote before it's an embryo, btw.

You are, of course, correct....

Edited October 6, 2012 by Smallc

[kraychik]

Not really. In fact, it's about nothing but that. Some of you just seem to think that it's your business.

Taking a survey of the feelings of mothers isn't really a reasonable approach at all.

Right, so in other words you don't think reasonable people can disagree over the issue of abortion. No point continuing any further with a leftist who has actually deluded himself into thinking he's partly conservative.

[login]

The problem exists in that women may not know they are pregnant until perhaps 20 weeks so unless they are dosing with the morning after pill or trippling their birth control pills if they use them -- the day after they are inseminated, they won't catch before it has developed perhaps.

but what if it is an aids baby or fatality due to disease, you want to put the mother through pregnancy to live the pain of watching their child die?

at thousands upon thousands to tax payer and the mother?

some mother might choose that but child birth ain't taking a dump

----------

its not right but the world ain't either

-----------

if god can't provide for a womans needs to raise a child god shouldn't hold it against people who don't

this world ain't egalitarian, people want to live not servetude.

wome arn't just baby despensers there is more to their lives and values.

------

none the less I would carry the child to term but I'm not a capitalist or a materialist,

I do think I understand why some women may not seek to carry a child to term though, lots of non real judeo-christians islamists in the world

there does appear to be abortion in the bible though ex. infidelity and only married people are suppose to have sex..

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.ca/2008/10/bibles-guide-to-abortion.html

when a wife goeth aside to another instead of her husband, and is defiled; Or when the spirit of jealousy cometh upon him, and he be jealous over his wife, and shall set the woman before the LORD, and the priest shall execute upon her all this law. Then shall the man be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity\

iNTERPRETATION?

So is this the only aceptable form of abortion - priest poisoning women? Isn't that a twist

...

The Test for an Unfaithful Wife

11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[c] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.

16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[d] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[e] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

29 “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the Lord and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.’”

from my brief research LYE is part of the agent in the biblical out of wedlock abortion (infidelity),

but we arn't sacrificng rams at the temple these day either

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lye

Edited October 6, 2012 by login

[kraychik]

Ya I started working on my society-destroying politics in high-school and you know, there really was no going back.

Not surprising, you have a high-school calibre knowledge of political, economic, and historical issues from what I've seen of you in here. I wouldn't have been surprised if you were actually still in high school, or maybe adult high school.

[Smallc]

Right, so in other words you don't think reasonable people can disagree over the issue of abortion.

If you're arguing from a religious perspective, or a perspective that assumes you have control over someone else's body, you aren't being reasonable.

No point continuing any further with a leftist who has actually deluded himself into thinking he's partly conservative.

You beat that horse. It doesn't really bother me.

[Guest]

If a person is pro choice on abortion, as I am, how can they make it conditional? I believe in a woman's right to have an abortion. Her reasons are her own. If they involve gender selection, or the potential for disability, or just that she doesn't like the eye colour and wants to try for blue instead of hazel, it's got nothing to do with me.

I'm astonished at the hypocrisy of the woman in the article who called gender selection abortions "appalling". All abortions are appalling. We allow them as a society because to not do so would be more appalling.

Edited October 6, 2012 by bcsapper

[cybercoma]

The problem exists in that women may not know they are pregnant until perhaps 20 weeks so

Nearly 90% of abortions take place in Canada before 13 weeks of gestation.

So that problem that you think exists actually doesn't.

Edited October 6, 2012 by cybercoma

[kraychik]

If you're arguing from a religious perspective, or a perspective that assumes you have control over someone else's body, you aren't being reasonable.

Exactly, your point of departure for this discussion is your religion of leftism.

[kraychik]

Nearly 90% of abortions take place in Canada before 13 weeks of gestation.

So that problem that you think exists actually doesn't.

I love how you just manufacture these statistics.

[cybercoma]

I love how you just manufacture these statistics.

I don't usually respond to you because you have absolutely nothing to contribute. However, if you're going to call me a liar, then you better be able to back it up. The statistic that I gave is from Statistics Canada's survey on induced abortions. Here's a link to the data. http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/bsolc/olc-cel/olc-cel?catno=82-223-XIE〈=eng#formatdisp

[kraychik]

I don't usually respond to you because you have absolutely nothing to contribute. However, if you're going to call me a liar, then you better be able to back it up. The statistic that I gave is from Statistics Canada's survey on induced abortions. Here's a link to the data. http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/bsolc/olc-cel/olc-cel?catno=82-223-XIE〈=eng#formatdisp

Ok, so here is the linked PDF file, direct me to where you found the distribution of abortions by weeks of pregnancy. It's not there.

[cybercoma]

Ok, so here is the linked PDF file, direct me to where you found the distribution of abortions by weeks of pregnancy. It's not there.

Apparently it's archived now, so you'll have to request it from Stats Canada if you want to see the actual distribution.

I'll tell you what it is. Almost 90% of abortion occur before 13 weeks gestation.

[cybercoma]

Just because I care about your education, kraychik, I tracked down the table for you.

StatsCan 2003 Data

Here's the breakdown at a glance:

5-12 weeks — 90.1%

13-16 weeks — 7.4%

17-20 weeks — 2.0%

>20 weeks — 0.3%

Keeping it further in mind that these include abortions for all reasons, even medical emergencies.

Edited October 6, 2012 by cybercoma

[kraychik]

Apparently it's archived now, so you'll have to request it from Stats Canada if you want to see the actual distribution.

I'll tell you what it is. Almost 90% of abortion occur before 13 weeks gestation.

Why did you post a link that doesn't provide any substantiation for your manufactured claim?

Moreover, who cares what the percentage is? Is there a critical mass of late-term abortions that you think must be reached before prohibitions are placed on this practice that most Canadian finds oppose and probably find immoral and disgusting? If it's wrong it's wrong, regardless of wheat percentage of total performed abortions it composes.

[cybercoma]

Why did you post a link that doesn't provide any substantiation for your manufactured claim?

Moreover, who cares what the percentage is? Is there a critical mass of late-term abortions that you think must be reached before prohibitions are placed on this practice that most Canadian finds oppose and probably find immoral and disgusting? If it's wrong it's wrong, regardless of wheat percentage of total performed abortions it composes.

I ask you kindly to take back your claim that my numbers were made up and are unsubstantiated.

[Bonam]

Moreover, who cares what the percentage is? Is there a critical mass of late-term abortions that you think must be reached before prohibitions are placed on this practice that most Canadian finds oppose and probably find immoral and disgusting? If it's wrong it's wrong, regardless of wheat percentage of total performed abortions it composes.

Why is it "wrong"? If a human embryo/fetus is a human life, and the primary moral consideration is whether or not it is ethical to terminate this life, then why would the ethics of this change whether the entity in question is 12 weeks old or 13 weeks old? Absurd.

The morality of having an abortion is unchanged over the span of the pregnancy, because there is a higher ethical consideration than the one of taking or not taking a life: whether the government should have the power to subjugate the physical freedom of one person to the needs of another. Only once the fetus is viable and can survive outside the mother should abortion be off the table, since options which give the mother her freedom while also saving the life of the fetus would then exist.

[cybercoma]

The morality of having an abortion is unchanged over the span of the pregnancy, because there is a higher ethical consideration than the one of taking or not taking a life: whether the government should have the power to subjugate the physical freedom of one person to the needs of another. Only once the fetus is viable and can survive outside the mother should abortion be off the table, since options which give the mother her freedom while also saving the life of the fetus would then exist.

That's exactly how abortions work in Canada.

After 24 weeks there's only a handful of specialized doctors that can carry it out anyway. It's not the same thing as going to a clinic to have it done. The vast majority of those cases are for medically necessary reasons, where the fetus would die anyway being carried to term. The social reasons for anyone waiting that long are typically women that are in severely abusive relationships or young girls that are in denial for fear of religious persecution in their communities. These social reasons for delaying abortion that long are extremely limited however. More to the point, most of these occur between 20-24 weeks anyway. It's so rare that anyone has an abortion after 24 weeks that it's practically impossible to find any reliable information on it whatsoever.

Abortions after the time a fetus becomes viable outside the womb just do not happen.

So why do people keep bringing this up?

It's obviously to backdoor abortion legislation. It's to stigmatize further the women that choose not to have their bodies used as an incubator against their will. It's to make it easier to change the number of weeks later on with simply the stroke of the pen and enough willing MPs to agree to it. It's certainly not to ensure abortions don't happen after 24 weeks, unless medically necessary because that's not happening now.

[jbg]

Tell you what!

When you grow a uterus, I'll care about your opinion.

But one's opinion on this issue only matters to oneself.

Don't believe in abortion?

Don't have one.

If Mr. Canada wants to raise everyone's unplanned children we can stop all abortions. But only if he pays for the delivery.

[cybercoma]

I ask you kindly to take back your claim that my numbers were made up and are unsubstantiated.

Still waiting, kraychik.

[dre]

Why is it "wrong"? If a human embryo/fetus is a human life, and the primary moral consideration is whether or not it is ethical to terminate this life, then why would the ethics of this change whether the entity in question is 12 weeks old or 13 weeks old? Absurd.

The morality of having an abortion is unchanged over the span of the pregnancy, because there is a higher ethical consideration than the one of taking or not taking a life: whether the government should have the power to subjugate the physical freedom of one person to the needs of another. Only once the fetus is viable and can survive outside the mother should abortion be off the table, since options which give the mother her freedom while also saving the life of the fetus would then exist.

Only once the fetus is viable and can survive outside the mother should abortion be off the table, since options which give the mother her freedom while also saving the life of the fetus would then exist.

These days they can take a fetus out of the host and keep it alive pretty damn early.

Edited October 7, 2012 by dre

[Bonam]

These days they can take a fetus out of the host and keep it alive pretty damn early.

Great. And as technology continues to advance, I'm sure that time will get ever earlier and earlier. Eventually if someone wants an "abortion" the doctor will just teleport the embryo out of the uterus and let it mature inside an artificial environment. That way the mother doesn't have to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want, and no life will be terminated in the process. Everyone wins and the debate will be over.

[jbg]

Great. And as technology continues to advance, I'm sure that time will get ever earlier and earlier. Eventually if someone wants an "abortion" the doctor will just teleport the embryo out of the uterus and let it mature inside an artificial environment. That way the mother doesn't have to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want, and no life will be terminated in the process. Everyone wins and the debate will be over.

Except that then there will be a baby, and a baby's natural parents still both floating around.

[Bonam]

Except that then there will be a baby, and a baby's natural parents still both floating around.

People are allowed to give up a baby for adoption / foster care after it's born. Why not before?

[Mr.Canada]

People are allowed to give up a baby for adoption / foster care after it's born. Why not before?

People can abort a baby on the due date or after legally in Canada. Choice is awesome.