Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 The bill calls for official condemnation of sex selection abortions, that's it. Nothing else. Who could possibly be in favor of sex selection abortions? This isn't a law, it doesn't put any limits on abortion, nothing like that just an official condemnation of the practice of sex selection abortions. Harmless. I can't imagine why anyone, other than the Chinese government for a while there, would be in favour of abortions. What I'm in favour of is a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. Her reasons are irrelevant. So the motion should fail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 Well, then, perhaps there should be incubators at the ready to try and keep these aborted babies alive, since I assume you, as a compassionate person, also believe that, under no circumstances, does anyone have the right to kill a baby without its consent just because its mother wanted it out of her womb before contractions started. When a fetus is old enough to survive outside the body, doctors will counsel the women into giving the child up for adoption. There are practically no doctors in the country that will actually abort a fetus that may be viable. Nevertheless, the pregnancy should still be terminated according to the mother's wishes because the fetus no longer has her full consent to use her body as an incubator. Moreover, the government cannot force her to because she has freedom from bodily interference. The legislation would be illegal. The situation you're describing is exceedingly rare, however. Only some 2% or less of abortions occur when the fetus is viable. Typically, they happen because there's risk to the mother or child in delivery, the child has a severe disability and probably will not live for long after being born, or the mother was in an abusive situation and either didn't want to admit she was pregnant or could not end the pregnancy because her partner or family or community wouldn't allow her to. I already mentioned that the sex-selection study from BC that the OP is predicated upon was severely flawed. So there is no substantial support for the notion that sex-selection is occurring in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 But in order for women to have a choice, the option must exist. I'm opposed to any measure that would restrict women's ability to make that choice: hence pro-abortion. Call it what you want. Pro-abortion means you want abortions to happen. I don't think very many people want abortions to happen, but realize that there's a need for them in certain situations and the option should be there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 Exactly. It's like being pro-choice on assisted suicide. I am, but I'm not pro suicide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 Call it what you want. Pro-abortion means you want abortions to happen. Well...I do. If that's the woman's choice. I don't think very many people want abortions to happen, but realize that there's a need for them in certain situations and the option should be there. That's essentially what I'm getting at, but without the token hand wringing over the act itself. As far as I'm concerned, people don't get worked up over appendectomies, so why the fuss over abortion? Making it into a big, serious emotional thing just plays into the hands of the anti-abortion kooks who want to stigmatize the people who make that choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderfish Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 Odd. I've never heard of this. Virtually everyone I've ever known who is pregnant (including my ex-wife) asked and were told. Physicians and ultrasound technicians in both Alberta and Manitoba on different occasions refused to tell. I even asked the ultrasound technician to "blink once for male and twice for female" since she wouldn't spill the beans...she just stared at me mildly amused but defiant. We found out the gender of our second kid as a result of being referred for a second, more comprehensive ultrasound, after tests came back showing some markers for Downs Syndorme. Thank god we didn't decide to terminate him! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 Well...I do. If that's the woman's choice. That's essentially what I'm getting at, but without the token hand wringing over the act itself. As far as I'm concerned, people don't get worked up over appendectomies, so why the fuss over abortion? Making it into a big, serious emotional thing just plays into the hands of the anti-abortion kooks who want to stigmatize the people who make that choice. Because it is a serious, emotional thing for many of the women that have them. To say it shouldn't be, denies the lived experiences of many women who have abortions and, in a way, arrogantly dictates to them how they should feel about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) Because it is a serious, emotional thing for many of the women that have them. To say it shouldn't be, denies the lived experiences of many women who have abortions and, in a way, arrogantly dictates to them how they should feel about it. For some women. Not for others. So why build a narrative that, ahem, "arrogantly dictates to them how they should feel about it" (and which also dovetails nicely with anti-choice narratives about "post abortion syndrome" etc.)? Stop perpetuating the stigma and let people feel however they feel without piling on guilt if they don't feel the way that society dictates they should (serious, emotional.) Edited December 7, 2012 by Black Dog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) When a fetus is old enough to survive outside the body, doctors will counsel the women into giving the child up for adoption. There are practically no doctors in the country that will actually abort a fetus that may be viable. Well, if we take the stance that what the woman wants, the woman must get, then the doctor has to take the baby out, regardless of how close it is to the predicted birth date. I think, though, many of us here, including myself, have fallen (back, for me) into the habit of using the term "abortion" incorrectly. It's generally defined as the removal of the foetus before viability. So, if a pregnant woman wants her baby out of her (or, if the baby's female and the father doesn't want a daughter and sends the mother to go get the foetus out) in the sixth month of pregnancy, and the baby can be kept alive outside the womb, the removal of the baby isn't an abortion. The situation you're describing is exceedingly rare... Yes, of course. I don't think that means it isn't a matter of concern, though. [ed.: c/e] Edited December 7, 2012 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 For some women. Not for others. So why build a narrative that, ahem, "arrogantly dictates to them how they should feel about it" (and which also dovetails nicely with anti-choice narratives about "post abortion syndrome" etc.)? Stop perpetuating the stigma and let people feel however they feel without piling on guilt if they don't feel the way that society dictates they should (serious, emotional.) What you just said is exactly what I'm saying to you. Glad we're in agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 Well, if we take the stance that what the woman wants, the woman must get, then the doctor has to take the baby out, regardless of how close it is to the predicted birth date.Don't condescend to me. What I said is not as juvenile as "what the woman wants, the woman must get" and you know it. You're way better than this, so it's surprising coming from you.I think, though, many of us here, including myself, have fallen (back, for me) into the habit of using the term "abortion" incorrectly. It's generally defined as the removal of the foetus before viability. So, if a pregnant woman wants her baby out of her (or, if the baby's female and the father doesn't want a daughter and sends the mother to go get the foetus out) in the sixth month of pregnancy, and the baby can be kept alive outside the womb, the removal of the baby isn't an abortion. Ok. Are you just thinking out loud? I'm not sure I really need to comment on any of this. It seems like you're just making a conceptual distinction here, but I recognize that you're using it to put forward the argument that all abortions (according to your above concept) should be allowed, but anything after that is not an abortion and should not be allowed. I'm saying there should be no limits placed on it whatsoever because we can't know the context of all situations in which these would arise. It's not a decision that should be shaped by legislators that cannot possibly foresee all circumstances. It should be made by the woman first with the guidance of those around her who are in the situation. This is critically a situation where we must not have ivory tower proclamations over what a woman can do with her body, even when it's being used as an incubator. Yes, of course. I don't think that means it isn't a matter of concern, though. [ed.: c/e] Frankly, I don't think there's any concern. If someone, whether they are born or not, can't survive without the use of another person's body, the law ought not (and cannot according to the Charter) demand that someone use their body to keep another person alive. It would be nice if they did, but it's certainly not conceptually the same thing as killing another person. It is condemning them to die, but they have no right over the use of your body against your wishes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 What you just said is exactly what I'm saying to you. Glad we're in agreement. It's not, but ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleipnir Posted December 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 So then this motion should pass through the House easily with every party supporting it. Are you suggesting every single MPs are stupid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 8, 2012 Report Share Posted December 8, 2012 Frankly, I don't think there's any concern. If someone, whether they are born or not, can't survive without the use of another person's body, the law ought not (and cannot according to the Charter) demand that someone use their body to keep another person alive. It would be nice if they did, but it's certainly not conceptually the same thing as killing another person. It is condemning them to die, but they have no right over the use of your body against your wishes. It didn't get there by magic and it isn't a squatter that snuck in. It had no say in the matter and is the result of others exercising other wishes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.