Motion 312 vote coming soon!

[g_bambino]

I said that allready, but when is it 'viable' at what point do we say it's a live birth.

That depends on the individual. Though, apparently there's a 90% survival rate after 26 to 27 weeks.

[Moonbox]

But a man can be forced by the state, regardless of the security of his person, to pay for the keeping alive of the child the mother decided would be born and would be cared for by her?

The alternative is that the state looks after the caring for this child. Since the state did not put its schlong in the hole, and the man did, it seems more fitting that the man pay for the consequences of his actions rather than the state.

That's pretty basic logic I think. Lesson to learn: Don't put your weiner in strange holes without protection. I'll acknowledge that it's much harder than it sounds, but it's something you have to think of before you forget your name drinking.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Moonbox

[Mr.Canada]

Many people think it's fine that a woman in Canada can late term abort a child even on her due date.

Women are free to abort a child but not free to vote in a democratically elected house apparently.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Mr.Canada

[cybercoma]

IMO most people who express an opinion know that late term abortions are quite rare in Canada, maybe 1%.

The Canadian Medical Association defines abortion as “the active termination of a pregnancy before fetal viability”. They do recognize that late term abortions may be performed “under exceptional circumstances.”

Unless you’ve been living in some nether world for the past 20 years, you’ll know that Canada is the only country in the Western world to offer no legal regulation on abortive practices whatsoever. Canada is the only country in the Western world to offer no legal regulation on abortion, including Scandinavian countries which the Canadian left appear to greatly admire.

So what? What problem are you trying to solve? There isn't one.

[cybercoma]

We are both talking about the state forcing someone to keep another human being alive. A woman can't be forced by the state to keep a child alive inside her. A woman can't be forced by the state to care for her child after its born. But a man can be forced by the state, regardless of the security of his person, to pay for the keeping alive of the child the mother decided would be born and would be cared for by her?

I think I made the difference very clear. You seem to be choosing to ignore it.

[g_bambino]

The alternative is that the state looks after the caring for this child. Since the state did not put its schlong in the hole, and the man did, it seems more fitting that the man pay for the consequences of his actions rather than the state.

Another alternative is that the woman who decided - since the decision is hers and hers alone - to let the man put his schlong in her and decided - since the decision is hers and hers alone - to carry that child to term and decided - since the decision is hers and hers alone - to keep the child and raise it covers the costs of raising it by herself, rather than using the power of the state to make the man who may not have wanted the child pay for it, whether he can afford to or not.

[ed.: sp]

Edited September 27, 2012 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

Many people think it's fine that a woman in Canada can late term abort a child even on her due date.

One more time: there's no such thing as a late term abortion. Once the foetus is viable, its removal from the womb is not an abortion. The child will survive just fine.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited September 27, 2012 by g_bambino

[The_Squid]

Another alternative is that the woman who decided - since the decision is hers and hers alone - to let the man put his schlong in her and decided - since the decision is hers and hers alone - to carry that child to term and decided - since the decision is hers and hers alone - to keep the child and raise it covers the costs of raising it by herself, rather than using the power of the state to make the man who may not have wanted the child pay for it, whether he can afford to or not.

[ed.: sp]

Not how it works.... and for good reason.

[g_bambino]

Not how it works.... and for good reason.

Which is....?

[scribblet]

That depends on the individual. Though, apparently there's a 90% survival rate after 26 to 27 weeks.

The U.S. puts it at 23 weeks, U.K. limits to 24 weeks, a baby was born at 21 weeks and survived. While 21 weeks is pretty miraculous to say the least, it does give us an indication to the point where we should be saying no. IMO it should be 21 weeks, except for the health of the mother.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/feb/21/health.lifeandhealth (I read about her turning 3 then can't find anything more)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1380282/Earliest-surviving-premature-baby-goes-home-parents.html

I used to be absolutely no questions in favour of abortion at any time, since then I've modified that to limiting late term. Maybe if we did limit it to 21 weeks, it would give something to the pro-life groups, but not really hurt anyone.

[Smallc]

Which is....?

Yes, I would also like to know the good reason.

[cybercoma]

I used to be absolutely no questions in favour of abortion at any time, since then I've modified that to limiting late term. Maybe if we did limit it to 21 weeks, it would give something to the pro-life groups, but not really hurt anyone.

How many abortions are there each year in Canada over 21 weeks that are not done for medical reasons?

Edited September 27, 2012 by cybercoma

[Mr.Canada]

How many abortions are there each year in Canada over 21 weeks that are not done for medical reasons?

Their are 100,000 abortions every year in Canada.

[Smallc]

[cybercoma]

You guys continue to ignore the fact that a financial obligation is not even remotely close to the same thing as telling a woman that something must live inside of her body against her will.

I honestly don't even understand how otherwise reasonable people could make that comparison.

Edited September 27, 2012 by cybercoma

[Smallc]

You guys continue to ignore the fact that a financial obligation is not even remotely close to the same thing as telling a woman that something must live inside of her body against her will.

I'm not making that comparison. I don't think that either thing should happen.

[cybercoma]

I'm not making that comparison. I don't think that either thing should happen.

The question is in the framework of why is one ok while the other is not. It's a false equivalence. They're not the same thing. Not that you're the one making that argument. I'm just saying.

Edited September 27, 2012 by cybercoma

[scribblet]

How many abortions are there each year in Canada over 21 weeks that are not done for medical reasons?

I don't know, and neither do you because the stats are only reported for abortions done in a hospital, clinics are not part of the statistics gathering. I believe they perform about half of abortions.

[cybercoma]

I don't know, and neither do you because the stats are only reported for abortions done in a hospital, clinics are not part of the statistics gathering. I believe they perform about half of abortions.

Clinics generally only perform abortions during the first trimester. You certainly couldn't surgically aspirate a fetus at 8-9mos. At that point the woman is likely required to be induced early, the baby stabilized, then put up for adoption.

[cybercoma]

Just to put this into perspective roughly 90% of abortions happen in the first trimester. Third trimester abortions are essentially non-existent. Which is why all of this debate is for naught. It's seeking to solve a problem that just isn't there.

The entire point of the debate is to try to get rid of abortions entirely because it certainly isn't to stop the rare, if ever, abortions that happen in the third trimester.

[scribblet]

I think we all know that, the point is to bring in some legislation that might keep the more rabid anti abortionists at bay.

[guyser]

Which is....?

In the best interests of the child.

It tskes two to tango, if one or the other are unsure then BC should be used.

[The_Squid]

In the best interests of the child.

It tskes two to tango, if one or the other are unsure then BC should be used.

And if BC fails and the mother raises the child, the father is still responsible, at least financially, for care. As it should be...

However, as someone mentioned, the woman's right to an abortion and making deadbeats pay child support are completely false equivalents.

[g_bambino]

You guys continue to ignore the fact that a financial obligation is not even remotely close to the same thing as telling a woman that something must live inside of her body against her will.

Do you honestly not think it's hypocritical for the state to force a man to pay (using his body to perfom the tasks for which he is paid and subjecting it to added stress, the degree of which depending on the father's financial circumstances) for a child he didn't want, but the state grants the mother the free choice of whether to give birth to that child and raise that child or not to? The woman is fully sovereign in this matter, while the father is subject to both the woman and the state. Fair? I think not.

[Peter F]

Do you honestly not think it's hypocritical for the state to force a man to pay (using his body to perfom the tasks for which he is paid and subjecting it to added stress, the degree of which depending on the father's financial circumstances) for a child he didn't want, but the state grants the mother the free choice of whether to give birth to that child and raise that child or not to? The woman is fully sovereign in this matter, while the father is subject to both the woman and the state. Fair? I think not.

Absolutely fair. You are still drawing a false equivalence; The male may have no bottom line say wether a woman carries

the child to term or has an abortion - influence certainly - but the decision is essentially out of his hands.

Your claim is that with the above being the case, The man is owed some sort of counterbalancing power. That assumption is asinine. The power to choose rests with the woman no matter what laws are in existence. All the Morgantaler acquitals demonstrated that fact, which the SCC, in thier wisdom, recognized. There is no counterbalancing right because there is no need for a counterbalancing right.

However, once the child is born, then both mother and father have a legal duty to support that child until such time as the child can support itself. Its entirely fair because both mother and father have equal responsibility.