Should Canada Continue to Allow Full-Term Abortion?

[Shady]

2 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

A direct quote from what you sent from the College of physicians " the 2002 guidelines stipulate that late term abortions after 23 weeks are reserved for, "serious congenital anomalies" or "exceptional clinical situations"

There's a difference between preforming necessary medical interventions and elective surgery, "abortion" being the latter. It's like i asked you to show me where the gov't provides boob jobs and you showed me evidence that someone got a mastectomy because of a growth.

See, so you're wrong.  There are late term abortions.  You said it wasn't even a thing.  Now yo'u're backtracking.  Regardless, unless you have access to people's private medical records, and the private decisions their doctor makes for them, you have no idea how and when certain abortions are preformed. 

[Army Guy]

I GUESS THAT ALL THE INFO BELOW IS JUST BULLSHIT THEN....

 

According to the source document below there are women who abort after 21 weeks in fact they number more than  1000, and of those the majority are due to no complication at all. Even if just one was aborted that would make your statement false but here we have more than a thousand....

 

Abortion clinics that are not affiliated with a hospital do not perform abortions past 21 weeks (often stated as 23 weeks from last menstrual period, “LMP”). About one-third of reporting hospitals don’t report details on gestational ages, presumably all in Quebec, but we can assume that the proportion of 21+ week abortions are similar for that one-third. Therefore, taking into account the total estimated numbers of abortions for 2018:  85,795*– the estimated percentage of abortions at 21+ weeks including Quebec is one percent (659 + 220 for Quebec = 879 abortions at 21+ weeks). 
(If we add a rough estimate of about 150 women a year travelling to the U.S. for an abortion at 21+ weeks, that changes the percentage to 1.16%. This estimate is based on about 25 women a year from Ontario who are funded to go down to the U.S., adding in estimated numbers for women across Canada, whether funded privately or by government.) 
* Adding in estimated missing 2018 numbers from New Brunswick: 600, based on past numbers and email communication with the clinic. 

https://www.arcc-cdac.ca/backrounders/statistics-abortion-in-canada.pdf

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/proof-of-third-trimester-abortions-in-canada

[SkyHigh]

11 minutes ago, Shady said:

See, so you're wrong.  There are late term abortions.  You said it wasn't even a thing.  Now yo'u're backtracking.  Regardless, unless you have access to people's private medical records, and the private decisions their doctor makes for them, you have no idea how and when certain abortions are preformed. 

Backtracking? Just to be clear, you consider terminating a gestation when the mothers life is in danger and someone that decides to voluntarily terminate one for "personal reasons" the same thing?

Abortion, as we use it colloquially, is an elective surgery. Read the quote i got from your link again "serious congenital anomalies" or "exceptional clinical situations" do either of those sound elective to do? Again a mastectomy is not a boob job

[SkyHigh]

40 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

I GUESS THAT ALL THE INFO BELOW IS JUST BULLSHIT THEN....

 

According to the source document below there are women who abort after 21 weeks in fact they number more than  1000, and of those the majority are due to no complication at all. Even if just one was aborted that would make your statement false but here we have more than a thousand....

 

Abortion clinics that are not affiliated with a hospital do not perform abortions past 21 weeks (often stated as 23 weeks from last menstrual period, “LMP”). About one-third of reporting hospitals don’t report details on gestational ages, presumably all in Quebec, but we can assume that the proportion of 21+ week abortions are similar for that one-third. Therefore, taking into account the total estimated numbers of abortions for 2018:  85,795*– the estimated percentage of abortions at 21+ weeks including Quebec is one percent (659 + 220 for Quebec = 879 abortions at 21+ weeks). 
(If we add a rough estimate of about 150 women a year travelling to the U.S. for an abortion at 21+ weeks, that changes the percentage to 1.16%. This estimate is based on about 25 women a year from Ontario who are funded to go down to the U.S., adding in estimated numbers for women across Canada, whether funded privately or by government.) 
* Adding in estimated missing 2018 numbers from New Brunswick: 600, based on past numbers and email communication with the clinic. 

https://www.arcc-cdac.ca/backrounders/statistics-abortion-in-canada.pdf

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/proof-of-third-trimester-abortions-in-canada

The first link uses words like "assume" and "rough estimate", so until I can evaluate the methodology I'll refrain from referring to it.

The second link, which is self described as "the #1 pro life news website" after conceding that the medical profession only preforms such procedures "when the diagnosis is certain and the defect is grave and incurable" , the best contradictory evidence they provide is that same medical profession made "a statement that "IMPLIES" that there "MAY" habe been some third trimester abortions performed for other non medical reasons. It also mentions having to send people south of the border to preform these procedures, seems to support my assertion that they're not available in Canada

Again "grave and incurable" are not words associated with elective surgery

Edited February 12, 2020 by SkyHigh

[Shady]

1 hour ago, SkyHigh said:

Backtracking? Just to be clear, you consider terminating a gestation when the mothers life is in danger and someone that decides to voluntarily terminate one for "personal reasons" the same thing?

No.  I don’t think that they’re the same thing.  That’s why I think there should be a law differentiating between the two.  Thanks for making my point.

[Zeitgeist]

37 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

The first link uses words like "assume" and "rough estimate", so until I can evaluate the methodology I'll refrain from referring to it.

The second link, which is self described as "the #1 pro life news website" after conceding that the medical profession only preforms such procedures "when the diagnosis is certain and the defect is grave and incurable" , the best contradictory evidence they provide is that same medical profession made "a statement that "IMPLIES" that there "MAY" habe been some third trimester abortions performed for other non medical reasons. It also mentions having to send people south of the border to preform these procedures, seems to support my assertion that they're not available in Canada

Again "grave and incurable" are not words associated with elective surgery

Post 21 week are performed in Canada.  I know of someone who had one for a high risk pregnancy.  I’ll leave it at that.  

Edited February 12, 2020 by Zeitgeist

[SkyHigh]

11 minutes ago, Shady said:

No.  I don’t think that they’re the same thing.  That’s why I think there should be a law differentiating between the two.  Thanks for making my point.

Making your point? Do you even know what your point is? Because you're arguing mine.

I have been the one trying to differentiate between necessary medical procedures and voluntary ones.

Of course, there are "serious congenital anomalies" and "exceptional clinical situations", "when the diagnosis is certain, and the defect is grave and incurable" that necessitate termination of a viable fetus, but you've yet to provide any evidence that "abortions" solely based on preference are

 

[SkyHigh]

25 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Post 21 week are performed in Canada.  I know of someone who had one for a high risk pregnancy.  I’ll leave it at that.  

Exactly, high risk

At 17 I went through it personally, or a least supported the girl I was with at the time(she went through it), and can unequivocally state that at no time did we, or any medical professionals equate it to "abortion" in the colloquial sense.

That's why i get frustrated when people can't or won't differentiate between them, we didn't choose to terminate, it was "forced" apon us regardless of what our ethical or moral beliefs may or may not have been

[Zeitgeist]

32 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Exactly, high risk

At 17 I went through it personally, or a least supported the girl I was with at the time(she went through it), and can unequivocally state that at no time did we, or any medical professionals equate it to "abortion" in the colloquial sense.

That's why i get frustrated when people can't or won't differentiate between them, we didn't choose to terminate, it was "forced" apon us regardless of what our ethical or moral beliefs may or may not have been

It’s a different story when the mother’s health is at great risk, clearly.  We could get into many ethical discussions about amniocentesis and the risks involved, as well as risks to the health of the fetus of complicated pregnancies.  They are complex and difficult considerations.  When we talk about bans on late term abortions, i understand there are exceptional circumstances.  Among those there is some discretion/choice.  What we’re talking about is general protective legislation against late term abortion except in very unique circumstances that present serious health risks.  This is why we have ethics panels composed of physicians.  

[Shady]

58 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Making your point? Do you even know what your point is? Because you're arguing mine.

I have been the one trying to differentiate between necessary medical procedures and voluntary ones.

Of course, there are "serious congenital anomalies" and "exceptional clinical situations", "when the diagnosis is certain, and the defect is grave and incurable" that necessitate termination of a viable fetus, but you've yet to provide any evidence that "abortions" solely based on preference are

 

Good.  Then you should have no problem with a law detailing the differences, and when it is and isn’t appropriate.

[Shady]

8 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

It’s a different story when the mother’s health is at great risk, clearly.  We could get into many ethical discussions about amniocentesis and the risks involved, as well as risks to the health of the fetus of complicated pregnancies.  They are complex and difficult considerations.  When we talk about bans on late term abortions, i understand there are exceptional circumstances.  Among those there is some discretion/choice.  What we’re talking about is general protective legislation against late term abortion except in very unique circumstances that present serious health risks.  This is why we have ethics panels composed of physicians.  

Exactly.  I had no idea that there were abortion nuts.  He’ll bent against any common sense legislation.  Kind of similar to gun nuts.

[Guest]

15 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

If it's all about consent of the owner, then why wouldn't the consent of the person whose life is ending matter?

They would typically be under the age of consent.  Even unto negative age, and I don't know what that does. 

 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Shady said:

Yes, but killing people to help people is a slippery slope.

I can't imagine not killing someone who requests it.  It should be a basic right.  If you are concerned about the slide into killing those in a vegetative state, without their consent but with the consent of a relative, I can see that.  I would probably have a different view than you, but I can see the dilemma. 

I would disagree with making those who request to die suffer for that dilemma though.

[Zeitgeist]

3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I can't imagine not killing someone who requests it.  It should be a basic right.  If you are concerned about the slide into killing those in a vegetative state, without their consent but with the consent of a relative, I can see that.  I would probably have a different view than you, but I can see the dilemma. 

I would disagree with making those who request to die suffer for that dilemma though.

But sometimes people wish to take their lives due to treatable conditions.  I think, at the very least, as part of the process of getting approval for assisted suicide, there should be an exploration of possible treatments.  I realize we may not be able to force treatment on someone of sound mind, but really, would that be so different from mandatory immunizations?  It seems to me that unless there is a real health risk, someone who is suicidal may not be of sound mind and treating that person, in a humane way, is generally a more medically sound route to take than assisting in their  suicide, which is really helping to kill them.  

No judgement of people who commit suicide, but I think assisted suicide is a dubious “medical” practice, in none but perhaps the most extreme and unique circumstances when there is no known pain medication or treatment that provides relief.  Passive euthanasia, removing life support, is different.  To actively kill will always be suspect at best as a legal medical treatment in my opinion.  

Edited February 13, 2020 by Zeitgeist

[Yzermandius19]

11 hours ago, bcsapper said:

They would typically be under the age of consent.  Even unto negative age, and I don't know what that does. 

 

If they are under the age of consent, then they can't give their consent, and therefore a life was ended without consent, even if the mother signs off on it. I find it odd that many pro-choice folks who claim to care so deeply about the right of the mother having the right to choose, don't give two shits about the consent of the person most effected by the decision to choose whether they live or die.

[Yzermandius19]

All this talk about supporting assisted suicide as long as the person consents and comparing it to abortion to show why they support abortion. Yet abortion would be assisted suicide without consent, and I'm pretty sure those in favor of the right to assisted suicide wouldn't extend that to apply to those who don't consent, but when it's unborn child, all of sudden it's all good to these half-baked thinkers. Some people around here need to seriously rethink their position with such idiotic justifications as their go to explanation for their position on the issue.

Edited February 13, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[WestCanMan]

On 2/13/2020 at 4:46 AM, Yzermandius19 said:

All this talk about supporting assisted suicide as long as the person consents and comparing it to abortion to show why they support abortion. Yet abortion would be assisted suicide without consent, and I'm pretty sure those in favor of the right to assisted suicide wouldn't extend that to apply to those who don't consent, but when it's unborn child, all of sudden it's all good to these half-baked thinkers. Some people around here need to seriously rethink their position with such idiotic justifications as their go to explanation for their position on the issue.

It's a tough decision to get a pregnancy terminated due to a baby's health issues, but it's more than just an 18 year ordeal and not every family has the time or money to provide a consistent, high level of care. When babies are born in really rough shape they'll need 100% care right through their adult life, and there are lots of adults out there who can't even provide a decent life for healthy kids, let alone kids which have extreme needs.

We all have our strengths and weaknesses. I can handle tough obstacles as well as almost anyone, but I could never do the day to day things that a nurse, doctor or vet does. My mother-in-law is a huge wimp who gets in a flap when things go even a bit squirrelly, but she used to volunteer in the hospital and sit with people in palliative care who had no one to visit with them and just offer comfort and support. I could never do that either. 

Some people couldn't provide care for a severely handicapped child who will never crawl or walk or talk. I'm in awe of the people who can, but I won't lie - I couldn't do it. 

[Rue]

On 2/12/2020 at 6:14 PM, Zeitgeist said:

Post 21 week are performed in Canada.  I know of someone who had one for a high risk pregnancy.  I’ll leave it at that.  

You are misrepresenting this exercise. Using a personal anecdote does not justify you making a generalization that its done. Again I repeat, for anyone who takes time to study the issue they would know post 21 week abortions are rare because the CMA does not allow doctors to do them unless there is a threat to the woman's life. They are not common place. You are asking for a law for an activity that is already regulated.

Also I am not sure and I never understand where you feel you have the right to tell anyone else what to do with their body. You clearly feel some religious or moral imperative to save a life by controlling someone else's body and telling that person how she must behave.

You really think you can hold someone in prison until they are forced to give birth. You want pregnancy enforcement police units?

[Rue]

On 2/13/2020 at 7:46 AM, Yzermandius19 said:

All this talk about supporting assisted suicide as long as the person consents and comparing it to abortion to show why they support abortion. Yet abortion would be assisted suicide without consent, and I'm pretty sure those in favor of the right to assisted suicide wouldn't extend that to apply to those who don't consent, but when it's unborn child, all of sudden it's all good to these half-baked thinkers. Some people around here need to seriously rethink their position with such idiotic justifications as their go to explanation for their position on the issue.

Just because you disagree with someone does not make their argument idiotic. The analogy you were given and do not understand and call idiotic is about who has the right to tell you or I what to do with our bodies. You want the state to have the power to dictate  others believe it should remain with the individual. Both sides of this debate deserve equal consideration.

This is an issue of who has final say as to what WOMEN do with our bodies.t to control their wombs and what is inside them to the state. I disagree. Doesn't make me an idiot or even pro-abortion.

21 week pregnancy abortions are not the norm in Canada, are already regulated and  not approved by the CMA and physicians don't engage in them unless they have good reason to, i.e., threat to the woman's  life, fetal distress and severe deformities, rape, incest. I think with due respect the over 21 week argument is just a pretext to be anti-abortion but couch it to make it sound more reasonable. Those of you pointing to 21 weeks let's face it are anti-abortion at any time. Using 21 weeks is just an arbitrary no. Why 21? Why not 19, 20, 23?

People always fall back to personal anecdotes about this issue but the bottom line is it comes down to the relationship between the woman carrying the child and her physician and every time you ask the state to intervene and violate the sanctity of that relationship you open the door to unintended issues.

Also can we please get some perspective on the issue. Physicians who provide abortions offer options and provide counselling. So do nurses, social workers, police,  firefighters , paramedics ,  child protection lawyers, teachers to name just a few.There are a lot of people out there you don't see  offering  judgement free support and options to abortion but also support a woman's right to control her body. Its not a black and white issue.

 

Edited February 15, 2020 by Rue

[Yzermandius19]

13 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

It's a tough decision to get a pregnancy terminated due to a baby's health issues, but it's more than just an 18 year ordeal and not every family has the time or money to provide a consistent, high level of care. When babies are born in really rough shape they'll need 100% care right through their adult life, and there are lots of adults out there who can't even provide a decent life for healthy kids, let alone kids which have extreme needs.

We all have our strengths and weaknesses. I can handle tough obstacles as well as almost anyone, but I could never do the day to day things that a nurse, doctor or vet does. My mother-in-law is a huge wimp who gets in a flap when things go even a bit squirrelly, but she used to volunteer in the hospital and sit with people in palliative care who had no one to visit with them and just offer comfort and support. I could never do that either. 

Some people couldn't provide care for a severely handicapped child who will never crawl or walk or talk. I'm in awe of the people who can, but I won't lie - I couldn't do it. 

Life containing suffering is a poor reason to justify abortion, and a person's life containing potential suffering is an even shittier reason to justify abortion. If the parents can't care of the child, there are much better options than abortion to deal with that scenario.

Edited February 15, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[Yzermandius19]

58 minutes ago, Rue said:

Just because you disagree with someone does not make their argument idiotic. The analogy you were given and do not understand and call idiotic is about who has the right to tell you or I what to do with our bodies. You want the state to have the power to dictate  others believe it should remain with the individual.

 

I don't want give to state the power to dictate to someone what to do with their bodies, but I do want the state to dictate what people can do to the bodies of others without their permission, especially when it comes to taking that person's life.

Both sides of the debate make some great arguments, but you are failing to make any good arguments for the pro-choice side of things. When either side starts putting the life of the mother or the child ahead of the other, as if one is more important than the other and one is simply the property of the other, that is where both sides jump the shark. Legalizing abortion in all circumstances with no exceptions is making the child the slave of the mother, and making abortion illegal in all circumstances with no exceptions is making the mother the slave of the child, the line has to be drawn somewhere, but drawing the line at either extreme is immoral and impractical.

Edited February 15, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Life containing suffering is a poor reason to justify abortion, and a person's life containing potential suffering is an even shittier reason to justify abortion. If the parents can't care of the child, there are much better options than abortion to deal with that scenario.

That's one way to look at it. Here's another:

As a family, parents decide how many kids they're going to have. Let's say they go with two, for their own reasons, which are personal.

After the 2nd child, there are lots of potential babies to be born, but those babies won't get to be born because mom's tubes will be tied, or dad will have a vasectomy, or some other form of birth control will stop all of those potential children from being born. No matter what parents choose to do, they're inevitably going to stop some babies from being born unless they're asexual anyway or they want to try to live with 16 or so kids.

Ffwd to where the 2-kid-parents already have 1 kid, and they find out after the 3rd month of pregnancy that their second child will be born with severe disabilities that will prevent them from ever walking or talking. The parents will make the choice of: either having that baby, or giving a different baby a chance to be born. It's one or the other. They will make the choice to not allow a baby to be born no matter which path they choose.

One of those potential babies will tie the family down financially, drain their time and energy, they won't be able to go on trips, it will make it almost impossible to have the first child in extra-curricular activities, they'll probably be woken in the night at least once every day for the rest of their lives, etc. In short, a family of 3 people will endure a lot of strain, the medical system will be bogged down, so that one person can live a long, suffering life without ever contributing to society or experiencing simple enjoyment. It's a choice that the parents can make, but it's a choice to take on a monumental task.

The other option is to have an abortion and give a different an opportunity to live. It's a hard option, but at the same time it's also just a matter of making the choice to give 1 person a life or another. Whichever way you choose, 1 baby doesn't get to live and that's entirely on you.  

This isn't an option that I only want to inflict on other people that I wouldn't inflict on myself. If I get past the point of functioning I don't want to bog my wife and kids down. I've had 5 great decades, that's a lot more than a lot of other people get. I don't want to be kept alive artificially, it would just be my time to go. 

 

Keep in mind, I'm not talking about something like Down's Syndrome, where a baby can still have a normal, fulfilling life and contribute to society in a very meaningful way. I'm not talking about a kid with either mental or physical disabilities, I'm talking about a baby with both mental and physical disabilities. One of my best friends from high school went down that road. It did not work out, I'll leave it at that.

 

 

Edited February 15, 2020 by WestCanMan

[Yzermandius19]

Abortion is the worst form of birth control by a massive margin, and abortion should not be used as birth control. Proper birth control prevents pregnancy, it doesn't end unwanted pregnancies. People using birth control doesn't not mean any potential form of birth control is a good idea to use, especially abortion. If an abortion is being done because people are trying to avoid the consequences of not using birth control, or using ineffective birth control, them being in a difficult situation they'd rather not be in does not justify using abortion as birth control.

If the family doesn't want to take care of the child, for medical, financial or other emotional reasons, that's what adoption is for. Abortion should be the last resort, and only used in situations where the life of the mother is unnecessarily jeopardized due to their pregnancy, with the mother's consent.

Edited February 15, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[dialamah]

4 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

If the parents can't care of the child, there are much better options than abortion to deal with that scenario.

What are these 'much better options'? 

If you're thinking adoption, how many people are actually willing or have the resources to adopt a child that is physically or mentally damaged?   

If you are thinking foster carers, how many foster carers have the ability to care for a child that is physically or mentally damaged?

If you're thinking some kind of facility - how many physically or mentally damaged children should taxpayers be willing to support in institutions?  

Would you be willing to take on the care of a child that had no brain, only the stem brain - they'll never walk, talk, or be potty trained and will not interact with you or their world in any way?  Their brain stem keeps their heart going and lungs working, but that's about it.  

Would you be willing to take on the care of a child that has 100s of seizures a day, will always need diapers, a wheelchair, help feeding themselves, but with a full life expectancy?  Such children can be self-aware and be very loving, a full person in the mental and emotional sense, but no way of ever taking care of themselves physically - they'll likely outlive their caregivers, and then what will they do?  

Is it a better option to birth a damaged baby, that will live in darkness and silence and pain for a few months or years, before dying anyway?   Or will have to undergo regular medical intervention in order to keep living a severely limited life for a few months or years before dying anyway?

It's not an easy decision to weigh the likely outcome vs. the best case scenario - where a very damaged fetus might do better than expected after being born, and should thus be given an opportunity.   How can one know for sure that they have both emotional and financial ability to care for that child for their entire life and beyond.  And even if they do at the time of baby's birth, what happens if a job loss or relationship breakup occurs - as they often do under the stress of raising a very handicapped child.  Who is best situated to make the decision of whether or not to birth a baby that is likely to need special care for its entire life?   Should all of us, as taxpayers, be willing to support the child that the parents cannot, either during that child's life or after the parents die?

And if you happen to be one of those people who've said "If you can't take care of a child, then you shouldn't have it", then you have implied that abortion is a better option than birthing a child that you can't take care of.  

[Yzermandius19]

12 minutes ago, dialamah said:

What are these 'much better options'? 

If you're thinking adoption, how many people are actually willing or have the resources to adopt a child that is physically or mentally damaged?   

If you are thinking foster carers, how many foster carers have the ability to care for a child that is physically or mentally damaged?

If you're thinking some kind of facility - how many physically or mentally damaged children should taxpayers be willing to support in institutions?  

Would you be willing to take on the care of a child that had no brain, only the stem brain - they'll never walk, talk, or be potty trained and will not interact with you or their world in any way?  Their brain stem keeps their heart going and lungs working, but that's about it.  

Would you be willing to take on the care of a child that has 100s of seizures a day, will always need diapers, a wheelchair, help feeding themselves, but with a full life expectancy?  Such children can be self-aware and be very loving, a full person in the mental and emotional sense, but no way of ever taking care of themselves physically - they'll likely outlive their caregivers, and then what will they do?  

Is it a better option to birth a damaged baby, that will live in darkness and silence and pain for a few months or years, before dying anyway?   Or will have to undergo regular medical intervention in order to keep living a severely limited life for a few months or years before dying anyway?

It's not an easy decision to weigh the likely outcome vs. the best case scenario - where a very damaged fetus might do better than expected after being born, and should thus be given an opportunity.   How can one know for sure that they have both emotional and financial ability to care for that child for their entire life and beyond.  And even if they do at the time of baby's birth, what happens if a job loss or relationship breakup occurs - as they often do under the stress of raising a very handicapped child.  Who is best situated to make the decision of whether or not to birth a baby that is likely to need special care for its entire life?   Should all of us, as taxpayers, be willing to support the child that the parents cannot, either during that child's life or after the parents die?

And if you happen to be one of those people who've said "If you can't take care of a child, then you shouldn't have it", then you have implied that abortion is a better option than birthing a child that you can't take care of.  

Is killing people preferable to taking care of them? I'm gonna go with no on that one, there might be some exceptions sure, and I'm willing to grant them, but they are rare, not common. Potential having a bad life is not preferable to abortion. Try asking some kids having hard lives in foster care or elsewhere whether they'd prefer to be dead right now, and see how many takers you get.

Edited February 15, 2020 by Yzermandius19