Motion 312 vote coming soon!

[dre]

No, you're wrong. pro Choice people refuse to acknowledge a baby within a woman as a human being, even at 9 months pregnant.

Sorry this is false, and myself and a few other people in this thread have already proven that. I know that a fetus is human and Im still pro choice. In fact... if you get right down to it almost everyone will conceded that a fetus is human. Its not a fish... or a goat... or an alien... or an ocelot. Its human.

YOu are confusing legal personhood with being human. The point at which a society assigns a human its complement of legal rights is entirely arbitrary and has nothing to do with whether a fetus is human or not. We can do whatever we want... a 19 yearold has more rights than an 18 yearold... even though both are human.

Thats why youre hung up on this pointless question, and this idiotic motion... Even though theres no real debate among scientists or anyone else... life starts at conception... and a fetus is human.

[dre]

Of course it is. They are having abortions using my tax dollars which makes it my business.

Yeah well if you need an operation for rectal cancer then that uses MY tax dollars. So be sure to let me know in case I decide I dont want the operation to go forward, ok?

[Mr.Canada]

We need to eliminate late term abortions in Canada. As it is now abortions can legally be performed by a doctor in Canada as long as the woman is pregnant, even at nine months! That's right an abortion doctor can legally kill a baby in the womb when the woman is nine months pregnant.

We need to take back control of our tax dollars until the government gets the message that they work for us and are accountable to us!

We, the people, have a say in how our tax dollars are spent.

[cybercoma]

Pro choicers believe that life doesn't begin at conception and doesn't begin until the first breath.

You speak for pro-choicers now, do you? I'm a pro-choicer and I believe it's a human being from the time of conception. If it's not a human being, what is it?

It still is not illegal no matter how you skew the facts. Any Doctor in Canada can perform an abortion at nine months legally.

I never said it was illegal. Quit being obtuse.

[cybercoma]

If they want to abort 9 month old babies they can pay for it themselves.

How many do it? You still haven't answered that one. How many abortions happen in Canada at 9 months pregnant that are not due to severe medical complications?

[cybercoma]

We need to eliminate late term abortions in Canada.

You haven't established that it's a problem yet. Still waiting.

As it is now abortions can legally be performed by a doctor in Canada as long as the woman is pregnant, even at nine months! That's right an abortion doctor can legally kill a baby in the womb when the woman is nine months pregnant.

Again, you've yet to show that any doctor would unless it was due to severe medical complications.

[Mr.Canada]

You speak for pro-choicers now, do you? I'm a pro-choicer and I believe it's a human being from the time of conception. If it's not a human being, what is it?

This is quite a big step for a pro choicer because most pro choicers will not admit that life begins at conception. I value human life, pro choicers regard human life as disposable. The taking of a human life is against the law in our society yet it is somehow ok to do when in the womb or, most recently, when asking a Dr. to take your life.

How many do it? You still haven't answered that one. How many abortions happen in Canada at 9 months pregnant that are not due to severe medical complications?

Irrelevant. Necrophilia is against the law, how many people have sex with corpses? I dare say we have more late term abortions in Canada then necrophiliacs on a yearly basis.

You haven't established that it's a problem yet. Still waiting.

Again, you've yet to show that any doctor would unless it was due to severe medical complications.

In Canada in 2010 537 abortions were performed at 21+ weeks of pregnancy. The Canadian Institute for health states that viability to live outside the womb is 20 weeks. This figure excludes Quebec so with Quebec it would be at least 600 late term abortions per year.

2100+ abortions are done by the ways that result in the baby being sliced and ripped apart then pulled out in pieces. or 7.8% of all abortions excluding Quebec so this figure is actually higher.

http://www.cihi.ca/CIHI-ext-portal/pdf/internet/TA_10_ALLDATATABLES20120417_EN

These are the latest stats I could find.

Edited October 8, 2012 by Mr.Canada

[cybercoma]

most pro choicers will not admit that life begins at conception.

Do you have anything to back this claim up?

I value human life, pro choicers regard human life as disposable.

I don't regard human life as disposable nor do any other pro-choice people that I know of. In fact quite the opposite could be argued. You should read into abortion laws in Romania to understand what I mean.

Moreover, there are pro-choice people that are personally opposed to abortion. But you don't seem to understand that.

The taking of a human life is against the law in our society yet it is somehow ok to do when in the womb or, most recently, when asking a Dr. to take your life.

That's right because when human rights come into conflict with each other a decision needs to be made about them. When one person's right to life conflicts with another person's right to life, liberty, and security of the person, a decision needs to be made. The government doesn't get to force you to give up a kidney to save another person's life, even if you caused the injury to that person. They don't force you to donate blood. They can't force you to be implanted with a tracking device to make it easier to find people if or when they commit a crime. It's not legal for the government to create laws that intrude on your body. They can't do strange medical testing on you against your will either for this reason.

Your position on abortion demands that the federal government create a law that forces a woman to have another human body hooked into hers against her will, growing inside of her. You wouldn't force someone to give up a kidney to another person against their will, even if they were the ones to cause the injury that required the surgery. You wouldn't force a human being to be attached to another against their will via tubes, so they could use their organs to filter the blood of a sick individual for 9 months. And why not? Because there is no right to be kept alive. You are not required to use your body to keep another human being alive in any way whatsoever and the government cannot pass laws that violate the security of the person in order to require them to do so.

You do not get a say over the security of people's bodies. This cannot be violated, as outlined in the Charter. Moreover, there is no right for you to be kept alive by another person using their organs to keep you alive. In fact, later in life, it is perfectly legal to stop keeping someone alive and it's perfectly legal for doctors not to resuscitate you if you ask them not to. Do you know why Do Not Resuscitate orders are legal? Because you have security of the person. Do you know why you can refuse help from paramedics when you're sick or injured? Because you have security of the person.

Thus, do you know why you can't force a woman to allow another human being to use her uterus and grow inside of her for 9 months? Because she has security of the person. Therefore, you have absolutely no right to use the government to dictate to her that her organs have to be used in a particular way that you deem morally proper.

Irrelevant. Necrophilia is against the law, how many people have sex with corpses? I dare say their are more late term abortions in Canada then necrophiliacs on a yearly basis.

Who knows? Got any figures? I can give you a recent example of a necrophiliac: Luca Rocco Magnotta.

In Canada in 2010 537 abortions were performed at 21+ weeks of pregnancy. The Canadian Institute for health states that viability to live outside the womb is 20 weeks. This figure excludes Quebec so with Quebec it would be at least 600 late term abortions per year.

21+ weeks is not third trimester. 25 weeks+ is third trimester. Your entire argument has relied on the graphic image of a woman requesting an abortion the day she goes into labour. Using your figures, how many of those were medically necessary? By the bye, those statistics echo the ones I posted earlier--nearly 90% of women have abortions before 21 weeks gestation (the distribution of unknowns is considered equal to the known sample).

Also, as I posted earlier the vast majority of those roughly 537 abortions (unknowns notwithstanding), are out of medical necessity. The ones that are prolonged that far for social reasons are usually done so because the women are in severely abusive relationships or are in denial about their pregnancies due to social pressures from their communities (usually religious). In other words, they are physically or psychologically abused and unable to make a rational conscious decision about it sooner.

Now you want to force a woman to carry another human being inside of her that she doesn't want until it is born. What then if she keeps the child and resents it? Is that the kind of home you want the child growing up in? What if the mother or parents are not in a socioeconomic position to provide for a child, but likewise have difficulty giving it up for adoption? What kind of environment is that for the child to grow up in? And what of the massive increase of children awaiting adoption? Are there enough families wanting to adopt a child to provide for them all or will the government then be spending your tax dollars to build orphanages? What kind of environment would that be for the child to grow up in?

These are all things to consider when you demand that the government force women to grow children in their womb when they don't want one there and they're not ready to have a family. Your greedy selfishness doesn't want your tax dollars spent on this, but you fail to consider what your tax dollars are going to go towards instead. Those tax dollars won't just go to the orphanages that will be needed, but the social degradation that will occur from the massive increase of children raised in poor environments will cost countless billions. Once again, I direct you to the Romanian example.

[jbg]

I couldn't agree more but I'm considered some errant judge may not see it that way.

That should never be before a judge in the first place.

There have been some notorious cases here where parents have tried to retrieve kids from happy homes after they gave them up for adoption. Once in a while it is the father who had no part in the decision.

Thus the involvement of a Court.

[Mr.Canada]

You made a good post. I'm on my way out to visit for Thanksgiving so I'll leave a better response when I return. I'm not advocating that abortion be outlawed. I'm advocating for some term limits be put in place. Why is that such a bad thing?

Also no one forced these women to have sex(rape excluded ofc) and get pregnant and no one is forcing them to carry the baby to term just to make the decision to keep it or not before the term limit. Surely 5 months(for example) is enough time to know if a person wants to keep or not.

I'll give your post the respect it deserves when I return. Have a good one.

[cybercoma]

When you come back, be sure to read this article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-true-picture-of-the-women-who-face-late-term-abortion/2012/07/27/gJQAxSCjEX_story.html

Introduce me to the woman who has an abortion after 20 weeks because she is cruel and heartless. Introduce me to the lazy gal who gets knocked up and ignores her condition until, more than halfway through her pregnancy, she ends it because it has become too darn inconvenient for her selfish lifestyle.

If such a woman exists, I have never met her.

[continued...]

Know that the woman you picture having an abortion after 21 weeks of pregnancy does not exist in reality.

Edited October 8, 2012 by cybercoma

[Mr.Canada]

Do you have anything to back this claim up?

Sure just about any post made by pro choicers on this board. They change the language they use from time to time. I believe they use the term 'personhood' now but it all means the same thing. A person cannot be a non human being.

I don't regard human life as disposable nor do any other pro-choice people that I know of. In fact quite the opposite could be argued. You should read into abortion laws in Romania to understand what I mean.

Well many seem to through their actions and stances on abortion. Many pro choicers treat pregnancy as an annoyance rather than a gift.

Moreover, there are pro-choice people that are personally opposed to abortion. But you don't seem to understand that.

My wife is one of them. We spoke about this last night, your post made me ask her about it. She is personally against abortion and would never have one but she says that no one has the right to tell another woman what she can and cannot do with their own body in regards to abortion. I brought up the nine month pregnant thing and she looked at me like I was an idiot...lol. Saying that no one would do that, basically exactly what you said...lol.

I still say that there is no law against it so it's still legally possible. if no one is doing it then it shouldn't bother anyone to have a law against it.

That's right because when human rights come into conflict with each other a decision needs to be made about them. When one person's right to life conflicts with another person's right to life, liberty, and security of the person, a decision needs to be made. The government doesn't get to force you to give up a kidney to save another person's life, even if you caused the injury to that person. They don't force you to donate blood. They can't force you to be implanted with a tracking device to make it easier to find people if or when they commit a crime. It's not legal for the government to create laws that intrude on your body. They can't do strange medical testing on you against your will either for this reason.

However when that life inside the woman body becomes viable outside the body it should have basic human rights, the same as anyone else.

Who knows? Got any figures? I can give you a recent example of a necrophiliac: Luca Rocco Magnotta.

I have provided the facts that there were about 600 abortions performed after week 21 in Canada. It is seemingly happening much more often the necrophilia is and we have a law against that.

21+ weeks is not third trimester. 25 weeks+ is third trimester. Your entire argument has relied on the graphic image of a woman requesting an abortion the day she goes into labour. Using your figures, how many of those were medically necessary? By the bye, those statistics echo the ones I posted earlier--nearly 90% of women have abortions before 21 weeks gestation (the distribution of unknowns is considered equal to the known sample).

Ok great so lets make the law 25 week cut off for abortions then. Nearly every nation on the planet with legal abortions have a cut off limit. Even the great socialists paradise of Scandinavian countries that people here are so fond of have cut offs.

Now you want to force a woman to carry another human being inside of her that she doesn't want until it is born. What then if she keeps the child and resents it?

Simple she can put it up for adoption.

Is that the kind of home you want the child growing up in?

people are free to raise their children as rthey see fit. If they aren't fit to raise a child they will be removed from them.

And what of the massive increase of children awaiting adoption? Are there enough families wanting to adopt a child to provide for them all or will the government then be spending your tax dollars to build orphanages? What kind of environment would that be for the child to grow up in?

People need to be responsible for their actions and take responsibility for them. if they want an abortion, have one before week 20-25 or whatever. Surely 5 or 6 months is long enough to decide.

These are all things to consider when you demand that the government force women to grow children in their womb when they don't want one there and they're not ready to have a family. Your greedy selfishness doesn't want your tax dollars spent on this, but you fail to consider what your tax dollars are going to go towards instead. Those tax dollars won't just go to the orphanages that will be needed, but the social degradation that will occur from the massive increase of children raised in poor environments will cost countless billions. Once again, I direct you to the Romanian example.

Other nations who have cut late term abortions aren't experiencing a massive influx of unwanted babies. Canada won't be any different. You're over reacting and flying off the handle.

Why do you keep bringing up Romania they are having a lot of abortions. You should be happy that half of all pregnancies end in abortion. A pro choice paradise. Emigration is always an option if someone would prefer that country.

[cybercoma]

Sure just about any post made by pro choicers on this board. They change the language they use from time to time. I believe they use the term 'personhood' now but it all means the same thing. A person cannot be a non human being.

Your sample size is too small and suffers from selection bias.

My wife is one of them. We spoke about this last night, your post made me ask her about it. She is personally against abortion and would never have one but she says that no one has the right to tell another woman what she can and cannot do with their own body in regards to abortion. I brought up the nine month pregnant thing and she looked at me like I was an idiot...lol. Saying that no one would do that, basically exactly what you said...lol.

You should probably listen to your wife. She knows what she's talking about.

I still say that there is no law against it so it's still legally possible. if no one is doing it then it shouldn't bother anyone to have a law against it.

It bothers me that you would create problems for people that would find it heartbreakingly necessary to have one, as the article I posted earlier shows.

However when that life inside the woman body becomes viable outside the body it should have basic human rights, the same as anyone else.

It could have human rights from Day 1 of conception and the government would still not be able to pass a law requiring a woman to use her body to incubate another human being. When rights are in conflict, the courts need to make a decision. They made that decision in 1988. I've outlined here and elsewhere why I believe the woman's security of the person takes precedence here. In short, the right to life is not the same thing as the right to be kept alive. There is no right to be kept alive. It may be the right thing to do, but there is no moral imperative.

I have provided the facts that there were about 600 abortions performed after week 21 in Canada. It is seemingly happening much more often the necrophilia is and we have a law against that.

And I'll ask you one more time, but you're making me repeat myself, so I'm losing my patience: how many of those abortions were medically necessary?

The picture you're painting of women having late term abortions because they're irresponsible, selfish, or cruel just doesn't exist in reality. Those that do decide to have late term abortions typically due so under much distress and heartbreak. No one carries a child to the third trimester and takes having an abortion that late in the game lightly. It's either because the woman is severely abused by her husband, who won't let her have an abortion and perhaps threatens to kill her if she does so; or it's very young girls that are in denial about their pregnancies and are perhaps under a lot of religious pressure to carry the child to term even though they have no desire to have another human being growing inside of them; or it's a woman that finds out later in the pregnancy that the child might suffer from a severe abnormality that couldn't be detected earlier in the pregnancy, an abnormality that may not threaten the mother or child's life immediately, but one that may result in the child suffering and dying shortly after being born or within the first couple years. These are the kinds of women that have late term abortions. These people that probably agonize and suffer over the decision, you want to turn into criminals.

Ok great so lets make the law 25 week cut off for abortions then. Nearly every nation on the planet with legal abortions have a cut off limit. Even the great socialists paradise of Scandinavian countries that people here are so fond of have cut offs.

Let's not and say we did because the result would be nearly the same without doctors having to worry about wrangling with legal problems should a woman suffer from any of the problems listed above.

Simple she can put it up for adoption.

people are free to raise their children as rthey see fit. If they aren't fit to raise a child they will be removed from them.

Simple right? All of those unwanted babies or babies that people are unable to care for being put up for adoption. And there's enough adopted parents to handle the increase in babies available? CPS would be able to keep up with the increased number of children that they would have to find homes for? You know the process is incredibly intense. They probe deep into your personal information to ensure that you're going to provide the best home possible for these kids. Would they still have time to do this?

But forget all of that for a minute....

Your simple plan requires a person to have another human being growing inside of them against their will. Can you even imagine waking up one day, being told that you have another human being growing inside of you completely against your will? Forget for a moment that you might want this to happen. Imagine if you absolutely under no circumstances want another human being inside of your body, but you wake up and there it is.

Now the state demands that you keep that thing inside of you for 9 months, then deliver, in excruciating pain, that human from your body.

It's a sickening thought for anyone that can bring themselves to imagine it with any sort of sincerity.

People need to be responsible for their actions and take responsibility for them. if they want an abortion, have one before week 20-25 or whatever. Surely 5 or 6 months is long enough to decide.

Surely it is and that's why less than one-tenth of a percentage have abortions after 25 weeks of gestation and the ones that do have them out of medical necessity or serious social circumstances. Circumstances that prevented them from otherwise having it sooner.

Other nations who have cut late term abortions aren't experiencing a massive influx of unwanted babies. Canada won't be any different. You're over reacting and flying off the handle.

There may not be a huge influx of unwanted babies if you ban late-term abortions, but that's only because it's completely unnecessary. You're creating a law that addresses a problem that doesn't exist and potentially creates complications for serious circumstances that do exist.

Why do you keep bringing up Romania they are having a lot of abortions. You should be happy that half of all pregnancies end in abortion. A pro choice paradise. Emigration is always an option if someone would prefer that country.

Because at one point Romania banned all abortions with serious consequences.

[scribblet]

The Canadian Medical Association recommends that doctors not perform abortions after 20 weeks gestation, as the fetus may be viable.

I was surprised to find that B.C. covers Dilation & Extraction (after 21 weeks - partial birth abortion), I didn't think it was covered at all in Canada. This procedure is rare and not available in all provinces. I can't find any stats on at all actually.

http://www.optionscentre.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=50&Itemid=58

http://www.abortionincanada.ca/methods/index.html#DilationandExtraction

Dilation and Extraction (D&X) (intact D&E, partial birth abortion)

There are no laws in Canada restricting abortion. Since abortion reporting and recording is inconsistent and incomplete across Canada, it is not known if, or how many, abortions occur by this method in Canada each year.

[BC_chick]

It could have human rights from Day 1 of conception and the government would still not be able to pass a law requiring a woman to use her body to incubate another human being. When rights are in conflict, the courts need to make a decision.

I agree with the notion that if you believe life starts at conception then week 5 shouldn't be any different than week 25. However, that's pretty much based on nothing but logic. Emotionally, there is a diffrence. The baby is more formed, it's human-like, it's not an embryo anymore. Even if purely an emotional argument, I think it holds true for most of us. That's why nobody defends late-term abortions, they just cite the rarity of it and refuse to budge on the issue because they don't like the slippery-slope that it could start.

As for early-term pregnancies.... well, I've never really shared this publically, but my views have actually evolved in the last few years. Nearly 1/3 of pregnancies are terminated in Canada. Of course, women have a right to do whatever they want with their bodies, but it's staggering statistics like that that give the pro-life lots of ammunition against abortion. And to some degree, I agree, somewhere along the way we've become very desensitized to the whole thing and I don't know if that's a step in the right direction.

On the one side we have the argument that the embryo is not a life, it's a fertilized egg. That's what I grew up believing from everyone around me. On the other side, we have the argument that it's a life, it's sacred and it should have rights as anyone else would.

A middle-ground would be acknowledge that there is more than a fertilized egg in a woman's body, it is a life, but the woman's rights trump that of her unborn child (you do this above, but hypothetically).

Perhaps if we didn't have such a nonchalant attitude about pregnancy we could reduce the number of abortions through education instead of legislature while protecting the rights of every woman at the same time.

And please don't tell me we don't take abortion lightly. As a society, we do.

[Guest]

I don't know if someone posted this already. It's from October 03. (One of the problems with getting your newspapers in a bunch)

The Supreme Court might make a decision while ruling on another case. They were supposed to hear the case on Oct. 10, but I haven't seen anything.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/10/02/supreme-court-set-to-tread-where-members-of-parliament-fear-to-go-the-minefield-of-deciding-when-life-begins/

[Smallc]

As for early-term pregnancies.... well, I've never really shared this publically, but my views have actually evolved in the last few years. Nearly 1/3 of pregnancies are terminated in Canada. Of course, women have a right to do whatever they want with their bodies, but it's staggering statistics like that that give the pro-life lots of ammunition against abortion.

I really don't see why.

[cybercoma]

How many pregnancies are prevented by other forms of contraception each year? Abortion is a contraceptive.

[bleeding heart]

Ok great so lets make the law 25 week cut off for abortions then. Nearly every nation on the planet with legal abortions have a cut off limit. Even the great socialists paradise of Scandinavian countries that people here are so fond of have cut offs.

The Scandanavian countries are more regressive and oppressive on this matter than Canada is.

[Black Dog]

I agree with the notion that if you believe life starts at conception then week 5 shouldn't be any different than week 25. However, that's pretty much based on nothing but logic. Emotionally, there is a diffrence. The baby is more formed, it's human-like, it's not an embryo anymore. Even if purely an emotional argument, I think it holds true for most of us. That's why nobody defends late-term abortions, they just cite the rarity of it and refuse to budge on the issue because they don't like the slippery-slope that it could start.

Abortion has been completely legal in Canada since 1988. If there was a "slippery slope", we'd have started sliding down it by now, surely.

As for early-term pregnancies.... well, I've never really shared this publically, but my views have actually evolved in the last few years. Nearly 1/3 of pregnancies are terminated in Canada. Of course, women have a right to do whatever they want with their bodies, but it's staggering statistics like that that give the pro-life lots of ammunition against abortion. And to some degree, I agree, somewhere along the way we've become very desensitized to the whole thing and I don't know if that's a step in the right direction.

Why does the number of abortions matter? And why need it be such a serious matter anyway?

On the one side we have the argument that the embryo is not a life, it's a fertilized egg. That's what I grew up believing from everyone around me. On the other side, we have the argument that it's a life, it's sacred and it should have rights as anyone else would.

A middle-ground would be acknowledge that there is more than a fertilized egg in a woman's body, it is a life, but the woman's rights trump that of her unborn child (you do this above, but hypothetically).

Actually, the latter position (one I hold) would be considered pretty extreme as it is completely cavalier about the destruction of a life.

Perhaps if we didn't have such a nonchalant attitude about pregnancy we could reduce the number of abortions through education instead of legislature while protecting the rights of every woman at the same time.

And please don't tell me we don't take abortion lightly. As a society, we do.

So what if we do? If abortion is between a woman and a doctor, what matter is it to the rest of us?

[Mr.Canada]

Our tax payer dollars are paying for this which makes it my business. Michael Hardner already stated that we are all part of the same community and therefore we all get to have a say in what the laws are and how they are enforced.

[cybercoma]

Our tax payer dollars are paying for this which makes it my business. Michael Hardner already stated that we are all part of the same community and therefore we all get to have a say in what the laws are and how they are enforced.

You're right. But guess what?

We live in a representative democracy. So your business ends at your representative's vote.

You don't get to dictate personally how every tax dollar is spent.

[Mr.Canada]

You're right. But guess what?

We live in a representative democracy. So your business ends at your representative's vote.

You don't get to dictate personally how every tax dollar is spent.

Yes, of course I do. Just like any member of the public gets to tell the education system what to do. Everyone gets input. That's how it works. I get input as does erveryone else in Canada.

[cybercoma]

Yes, of course I do. Just like any member of the public gets to tell the education system what to do. Everyone gets input. That's how it works. I get input as does erveryone else in Canada.

Yup. And your input was consider and summarily voted against in the House.

[Mr.Canada]

Yup. And your input was consider and summarily voted against in the House.

I know being a conservative is hopeless it really is, everyone wants a free ride. it really is generation 'me'.

I should just switch to the left and try to grab as much money from the government as I can until it runs out of other peoples money.

I hope the left gets in and bankrupts Canada then I can say, told you so.