Selective Abortions: They're Happening in Canada

[Wilber]

For an abortion? No, I can't think of one. But then, I don't believe in asking why she wants one.

Why shouldn't she be asked if she wants someone else to pay for it?

[Guest]

Why shouldn't she be asked if she wants someone else to pay for it?

I don't think they should. That's my opinion. You think they should, obviously, but once the word is out, how many of them do you think will tell the truth?

[Wilber]

I don't think they should. That's my opinion. You think they should, obviously, but once the word is out, how many of them do you think will tell the truth?

Do you think you should receive any surgery you want no questions asked by your doctor? Do you believe the fact a person may not tell the truth absolves you from asking a question or looking for the truth? Do you think that because someone might game a system and get away with it, removes any need to try and prevent them?

[The_Squid]

And you say, what health reasons? Do you just pay people without asking why?

The risks associated with being pregnant!

Are you being purposely obtuse .... ? You know very well that there is no good way to get where you want to go... at least not without a Conservative-style abortion snitch line.

Edited April 15, 2016 by The_Squid

[Wilber]

The risks associated with being pregnant!

Are you being purposely obtuse .... ? You know very well that there is no good way to get where you want to go... at least not without a Conservative-style abortion snitch line.

I'm not the one being obtuse. Anything to avoid confronting the issue raised by the OP. Edited April 15, 2016 by Wilber

[Guest]

Do you think you should receive any surgery you want no questions asked by your doctor? Do you believe the fact a person may not tell the truth absolves you from asking a question or looking for the truth? Do you think that because someone might game a system and get away with it, removes any need to try and prevent them?

No, not necessarily, and not at all.

But if you are talking solely about abortions, yes, yes and yes.

[Wilber]

No, not necessarily, and not at all.

But if you are talking solely about abortions, yes, yes and yes.

No, just paying for abortions so people can reject one gender in persuit of another.

[The_Squid]

I'm not the one being obtuse. Anything to avoid confronting the issue raised by the OP.

The issue won't be resolved by idiotic suggestions like "ask them why they're getting an abortion"...

I haven't heard a single suggestion that is at all realistic...

[Guest]

No, just paying for abortions so people can reject one gender in persuit of another.

Well, we're back to post 115 now. We don't want to do it all again, so I'll leave it here.

[Wilber]

The issue won't be resolved by idiotic suggestions like "ask them why they're getting an abortion"...

I haven't heard a single suggestion that is at all realistic...

Asking questions is always idiotic in Squidland apparently.

[The_Squid]

Asking questions is always idiotic in Squidland apparently.

Yeah... that's exactly what I said...

[Wilber]

Yeah... that's exactly what I said...

What are you saying then, that all women are liars if a doctor asks them why they want an abortion?

[cybercoma]

That is where we disagree. Means testing should nothing to do with it, the reason should.

You want bureaucrats to decide whether an abortion should be funded or not. It used to be law in Canada that a panel of doctors had to decide if the abortion was okay. The courts already determined near verbatim that the decision and therefore the reasons lie with the pregnant person alone and their conscience alone. Bureaucrats determining what's a good reason and what isn't or when abortions are valid or not was already deemed to be a violation of life and liberty, namely bodily autonomy. In a later case, Nova Scotia tried to deny funding and that was found to be a de facto ban on abortion because it severely limited access. So guess what? You can't do that either. Everything you're calling for is a non-starter and was settled by legal precedents set over 25 years ago.

[cybercoma]

WTF are you talking about, the Supreme Court has already said that. There are tons of medical procedures the state doesn't pay for, that doesn't mean you can't have them.

See my above post. The SCC has already said that denying funding is a de facto ban on abortion. So they already said you can't do that either. And really it should've obvious that it's a de facto ban, since your entire reasoning behind withdrawing funding is to make it as difficult as possible,for women to have them.

[jacee]

Why shouldn't she be asked if she wants someone else to pay for it?

Someone else pays for your health care too.

.

Edited April 15, 2016 by jacee

[Wilber]

You want bureaucrats to decide whether an abortion should be funded or not. It used to be law in Canada that a panel of doctors had to decide if the abortion was okay. The courts already determined near verbatim that the decision and therefore the reasons lie with the pregnant person alone and their conscience alone. Bureaucrats determining what's a good reason and what isn't or when abortions are valid or not was already deemed to be a violation of life and liberty, namely bodily autonomy. In a later case, Nova Scotia tried to deny funding and that was found to be a de facto ban on abortion because it severely limited access. So guess what? You can't do that either. Everything you're calling for is a non-starter and was settled by legal precedents set over 25 years ago.

Then I guess we can't refuse funding for any medical procedure for any reason. What makes a pregnant woman's bodily autonomy any different from anyone elses?

[Wilber]

Someone else pays for your health care too.

.

So let's be clear here. You consider having an abortion only because you don't want a female child to be health care?

[cybercoma]

Then I guess we can't refuse funding for any medical procedure for any reason. What makes a pregnant woman's bodily autonomy any different from anyone elses?

Nothing. That's why they can't force you to give your kidney to someone who needs it. But way to play the slippery slope card.

[Wilber]

Nothing. That's why they can't force you to give your kidney to someone who needs it. But way to play the slippery slope card.

What slippery slope? Is every limitation we put on the procedures we fund a slippery slope?

[cybercoma]

What slippery slope? I mention a court case that talked about a province withdrawing funding for abortion and you say, "I guess we can't deny funding for ANY medical procedure for ANY reason." That is perhaps the most exaggerated definition of a slippery slope argument.

[jacee]

So let's be clear here. You consider having an abortion only because you don't want a female child to be health care?

Abortions are health care.

.

Edited April 15, 2016 by jacee

[Wilber]

What slippery slope? I mention a court case that talked about a province withdrawing funding for abortion and you say, "I guess we can't deny funding for ANY medical procedure for ANY reason." That is perhaps the most exaggerated definition of a slippery slope argument.

Who's talking about removing funding for abortion? We require a valid reason for any procedure we fund. It appears you believe gender selection is a valid reason to fund abortion, I do not. I guess it is just that simple.

[Wilber]

Abortions are health care.

.

Answer the question.

[jacee]

Then I guess we can't refuse funding for any medical procedure for any reason. What makes a pregnant woman's bodily autonomy any different from anyone elses?

It isn't.

Pregnant men can make their own choice too.

.

[Wilber]

It isn't.

Pregnant men can make their own choice too.

.

Keep dancing.