Anti Abortion Not Dead in Canada

[bush_cheney2004]

you keep avoiding your own introduced concept - viability. Yes, you've finally acknowledged a couple of viability references... but continue to avoid answering the direct question put to you concerning your position on viability. Again, now for the 3rd time: When does your suggested viability, your "survival without/separate from the uterus", begin - exactly? And... what is it based upon?

Viability is an old concept...why do you obsess on it ? I think the current trendy limit is 24 weeks, but that could change. I don't feel strongly about any particular minimum gestation period. Does it matter ? Many doctors in Canada already impose their own limits, refusing to perform abortions after viability unless the mother's life is at risk. Ask them...

huh! Now you're onto "personhood". By all means, that's a real winner position Republicans/Teabaggers are hot for - wanting to declare personhood at conception. You should really play that for all it's worth!

Well, I'm not a Republican or "Teabagger", so the point is moot. But I am intrigued by your unexpected and visceral reaction to this well known concept (fetal viability). Does it impact climate change in some way ?

[bush_cheney2004]

waldo, at what point do you say to yourself, "this person isn't interested in having an honest discussion" and let it go?

Hey...get your own date !

[waldo]

Viability is an old concept...why do you obsess on it? I think the current trendy limit is 24 weeks, but that could change. I don't feel strongly about any particular minimum gestation period. Does it matter ?

"does it matter"? If it doesn't matter, why did you bring the subject up? How is it an obsession to respond to your mention of fetal viability? As for your described limit @24 weeks... what's that based on? Whatever #weeks basis you apply, it effectively represents a varying survival percentage at that particular stage of development. From a scientific basis, the survival rate @24 weeks can be as low as 40%, and even then presumes upon extensive artificial aids... notwithstanding a high preponderance of abnormalities can exist at that gestation period. But that's not your (claimed) country's legal threshold... is it? Perhaps you should better understand Roe vs. Wade, hey?

.

Many doctors in Canada already impose their own limits, refusing to perform abortions after viability unless the mother's life is at risk. Ask them...

many? How much is a 'many'? Under the Canada Health Act, as a recognized medical procedure, the statistics I read state that in Canada <2% of abortions occur after 20 weeks... and are performed only in cases of, "severe fetal anomaly or under compelling maternal life or health circumstance". Even without a formal abortion law, Canada has an abortion rate that approaches the lowest rates for countries that have legal legislation governing abortion.

.

Well, I'm not a Republican or "Teabagger", so the point is moot. But I am intrigued by your unexpected and visceral reaction to this well known concept (fetal viability).

oh my! This is a revelation... don't tell me you claim to be one of those there independent types! In any case, personhood (at conception) is one of those stoopid positions only the U.S. GOP/Tea Party could initiate and continue to put forward (even if from the fringes within the parties).

you can claim I have an, as you say, "unexpected and visceral reaction to the subject you initiated... fetal viability. You can claim that for all your blustering worth! But this is another revelation: if you're now going to speak of "personhood" directly in the context of fetal viability..... what's the timed gestation point of your definition of "personhood"... if not at the point of conception?

Does it impact climate change in some way?

this is an example of MLW member cybercoma calling you out on your failure to have an 'honest discussion'.

[bush_cheney2004]

"does it matter"? If it doesn't matter, why did you bring the subject up? How is it an obsession to respond to your mention of fetal viability? As for your described limit @24 weeks... what's that based on? Whatever #weeks basis you apply, it effectively represents a varying survival percentage at that particular stage of development. From a scientific basis, the survival rate @24 weeks can be as low as 40%, and even then presumes upon extensive artificial aids... notwithstanding a high preponderance of abnormalities can exist at that gestation period. But that's not your (claimed) country's legal threshold... is it? Perhaps you should better understand Roe vs. Wade, hey?

No kidding....the "abnormalities" were depicted in the very graphic that I posted and set you off on this. Several U.S. states now have legal limits on abortions, and the fight continues in many others. Twenty-four weeks may be an arbitrary number politically, but any number represents a challenge to the "abortion rights" status quo. So the number isn't important to the abstract concept of determining fetal viability and "personhood" in general.

many? How much is a 'many'? Under the Canada Health Act, as a recognized medical procedure, the statistics I read state that in Canada <2% of abortions occur after 20 weeks... and are performed only in cases of, "severe fetal anomaly or under compelling maternal life or health circumstance". Even without a formal abortion law, Canada has an abortion rate that approaches the lowest rates for countries that have legal legislation governing abortion.

That's nice....but legally, the unborn may be aborted in Canada regardless of the underlying reason at any time. Just to be a stinker, I wonder what the WAIT TIMES are for abortions compared to other medical procedures ? It would be interesting to see how scarce health care resources and dollars are allocated to the termination of "fetuses" in each province.

oh my! This is a revelation... don't tell me you claim to be one of those there independent types! In any case, personhood (at conception) is one of those stoopid positions only the U.S. GOP/Tea Party could initiate and continue to put forward (even if from the fringes within the parties).

you can claim I have an, as you say, "unexpected and visceral reaction to the subject you initiated... fetal viability. You can claim that for all your blustering worth! But this is another revelation: if you're now going to speak of "personhood" directly in the context of fetal viability..... what's the timed gestation point of your definition of "personhood"... if not at the point of conception?

Gee...hadn't really thought about it, as it is not important to the general discussion of abortion limits for fetal viability. I suppose we could invoke some limit theory and statistical analysis of fertilized egg / zygote failure, but it turns out that the practical and more pragmatic limit is being imposed by those who are being asked to perform or fund abortions. In some provinces and states, it's damn hard to get one.

this is an example of MLW member cybercoma calling you out on your failure to have an 'honest discussion'.

I never claimed to be honest...just entertaining ! You didn't answer the question, and that's OK. Life on MLW needn't be so serious all the time...it's not like we are killing unborn children !!

[waldo]

No kidding....the "abnormalities" were depicted in the very graphic that I posted and set you off on this. Several U.S. states now have legal limits on abortions, and the fight continues in many others. Twenty-four weeks may be an arbitrary number politically, but any number represents a challenge to the "abortion rights" status quo. So the number isn't important to the abstract concept of determining fetal viability and "personhood" in general.

no - you were called on your graphic that you used without qualifying its association to fetal alcohol syndrome... as is your way, you simply bumbled forward using that graphic in the context of generalized fetal viability. Of course associating a number to 'accepted/understood' fetal viability is paramount, whether from a legal, medical or scientific perspective... the pro-life camp wants to push that number lower than any legal, medical or scientific assessments.

.

That's nice....but legally, the unborn may be aborted in Canada regardless of the underlying reason at any time.

again, in Canada, abortion is limited under the Canada Health Act. Again: "the statistics I read state that in Canada <2% of abortions occur after 20 weeks... and are performed only in cases of, "severe fetal anomaly or under compelling maternal life or health circumstanced". Even without a formal abortion law, Canada has an abortion rate that approaches the lowest rates for countries that have legal legislation governing abortion. Don't hesitate to put forward your examples of abortion occurring in Canada... after 20... 22... 24... (you pick the number)... that didn't associate with, "severe fetal anomaly or under compelling maternal life or health circumstance".

.

I wonder what the WAIT TIMES are for abortions compared to other medical procedures ? It would be interesting to see how scarce health care resources and dollars are allocated to the termination of "fetuses" in each province.

you should explore your wonder and interest... step-up and go beyond your unsubstantiated implications.

.

Gee...hadn't really thought about it, as it is not important to the general discussion of abortion limits for fetal viability.

you really need to get your talking points lined up better. If you're now going to state personhood isn't important in consideration of fetal viability limitations on abortion... than perhaps you shouldn't have said, "Fetal viability as "personhood" criteria is not a new concept. Nevertheless, it represents a serious threat to pro-abortionists as a slippery slope to more "heinous" restrictions on the war against the unborn".

but again, you didn't answer the question as to your personal view/position on personhood... the concept you've now also introduced into the discussion. Again, "what's the timed gestation point of your definition of "personhood"... if not at the point of conception?"

I never claimed to be honest...just entertaining ! You didn't answer the question, and that's OK.

your self-evaluated entertainment value is highly overrated! Your question? Really, I was supposed to answer where you ask me: "Does it impact climate change in some way?". Was this you being..... entertaining?

.

Life on MLW needn't be so serious all the time...it's not like we are killing unborn children !!

'unborn children' is an oxymoron... oh wait, when you recall your childhood, or your children's childhood, do you carry that on back to an embryonic stage... or perhaps you have a point where your fetal viability defines child/children - yes?

[bush_cheney2004]

no - you were called on your graphic that you used without qualifying its association to fetal alcohol syndrome... as is your way, you simply bumbled forward using that graphic in the context of generalized fetal viability. Of course associating a number to 'accepted/understood' fetal viability is paramount, whether from a legal, medical or scientific perspective... the pro-life camp wants to push that number lower than any legal, medical or scientific assessments.

That's fine...I plucked the graphic for its general depiction of fetal development by week(s), never intending any discussion about defects or syndromes. That you have reacted with such reflex is just an added bonus. Again, I am only interested in the abstract idea of abortion limits because of fetal viability, not any specific goal.

again, in Canada, abortion is limited under the Canada Health Act. Again: "the statistics I read state that in Canada <2% of abortions occur after 20 weeks... and are performed only in cases of, "severe fetal anomaly or under compelling maternal life or health circumstanced". Even without a formal abortion law, Canada has an abortion rate that approaches the lowest rates for countries that have legal legislation governing abortion. Don't hesitate to put forward your examples of abortion occurring in Canada... after 20... 22... 24... (you pick the number)... that didn't associate with, "severe fetal anomaly or under compelling maternal life or health circumstance".

Not relevant to the legal status of unrestricted abortion law in Canada, or as you stated, no law at all. The unborn can legally be "slaughtered" for any reason, or no reason at all as espoused by abortion rights advocates, so great be their fear that any such restrictions be put in place. Turns out there are practical limits that impose restrictions beyond the control of such advocacy.

you should explore your wonder and interest... step-up and go beyond your unsubstantiated implications.

Of course...very wise not to take that bait, eh ? We already know about severe limits in several provinces already, but if I get bored I will crunch the numbers to see if Canadians have to wait for other necessary procedures because abortions have a higher priority. As has been discussed in the past, Canadians are sent to the USA for abortions as is done for other procedures.

you really need to get your talking points lined up better. If you're now going to state personhood isn't important in consideration of fetal viability limitations on abortion... than perhaps you shouldn't have said, "Fetal viability as "personhood" criteria is not a new concept. Nevertheless, it represents a serious threat to pro-abortionists as a slippery slope to more "heinous" restrictions on the war against the unborn".

but again, you didn't answer the question as to your personal view/position on personhood... the concept you've now also introduced into the discussion. Again, "what's the timed gestation point of your definition of "personhood"... if not at the point of conception?"

I don't know how to state it more clearly, and perhaps you just want to wrestle in the mud over a specific maximum gestation period to deflect the larger idea in general, but the number doesn't really matter as much as the political change any such number would mean in Canada. My statement concerning "personhood" and "fetal viability" stands as originally intended. It is a major threat to unlimited abortion rights advocates.

your self-evaluated entertainment value is highly overrated! Your question? Really, I was supposed to answer where you ask me: "Does it impact climate change in some way?". Was this you being..... entertaining?

No, you were asked why the rather pedestrian concept of fetal viability strikes such a nerve. What's the big deal ?

'unborn children' is an oxymoron... oh wait, when you recall your childhood, or your children's childhood, do you carry that on back to an embryonic stage... or perhaps you have a point where your fetal viability defines child/children - yes?

Yes I do, and I have the murky ultrasound photos to prove it. My in-laws joke that my wife is in her parents wedding photographs, even though you can't see her.

[Melanie_]

The reason is entirely relevant. Youre arguing that someone who more likely than not really was making poor choices in her life to get to this point should suddenly have the unequivocal right to terminate a human life. Often these people are not even old enough to drive, vote, etc. yet they have the right to terminate a human life.

So, your argument is that people who make poor choices should raise the next generation? (Note, I am NOT agreeing with your sweeping generalization about women who choose abortion, just trying to follow your logic.)

[Shady]

So, your argument is that people who make poor choices should raise the next generation? (Note, I am NOT agreeing with your sweeping generalization about women who choose abortion, just trying to follow your logic.)

You need to try harder in following logic, because what you've just stated makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Who raises the so-called next generation has absolutely no bearing on the legitimate life of an unborn baby.

Acknowledging limits on abortion, such as partial birth abortion and abortion in the third trimester is simply acknowledging science.

[Melanie_]

The point is that Kenneth is making a very broad generalization about women who choose abortion. He (and I do want to emphasize... HE) has just said that women who choose to terminate a pregnancy are irresponsible and can't be trusted to make their own decisions. He has just marginalized every woman who is faced with this decision, and trivialized her choice as if it were insignificant to her. He perpetuates the myth that women see abortion as routine, just another method of birth control, rather than recognizing that this decision is incredibly personal.

[Peter F]

Yes, he said women who are unwilling to remain pregnant were stupid to get pregnant and therefore should not be allowed the decision to end thier pregnancy due to thier stupidity. Smart folks - ( all the men I suppose, since they never make stupid pregnancy decisions!) should impose thier smartness

on the obviously dumb... and make them raise children! or be surrogates for those who want children but cant have them. Thats intelligent action apparently.

[cybercoma]

Too much sarcasm in Peter F's post. I don't understand the point you're making.

The short answer in all of this is that it's supremely stupid to make someone be a parent who has absolutely no interest in being one, whilst simultaneously advocating for cuts to programs that help struggling mothers. Conservative prolifers can't round that square peg in this regard.

Edited June 15, 2013 by cybercoma