Should Canada Continue to Allow Full-Term Abortion?

[PIK]

Just leave thing as the way they are. 

[WestCanMan]

57 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

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. 

100% true.

(aside from girls who aren't on birth control because they're not having sex yet, but get raped. I know that's not really applicable to your comment though)

Quote

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. 

If you're a person who would be willing to adopt that kind of baby, then that's a perfectly fine opinion I guess. 

I personally wouldn't want my wife to carry a baby for an extra 6 months and go through labour just to put a monumental strain on another family. I'd rather carry the burden of guilt. 

[dialamah]

10 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Is killing people preferable to taking care of them?

So you'd take on the care of a severely disabled baby, rather than see it aborted?   Or do you expect other people do do that, or perhaps the taxpayer through institutionalized care?

BTW, there aren't enough foster homes in Canada for all the kids that go into care and the numbers continue to decline.  Foster care isn't actually a viable option.

Edited February 15, 2020 by dialamah

[Zeitgeist]

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

So you'd take on the care of a severely disabled baby, rather than see it aborted?   Or do you expect other people do do that, or perhaps the taxpayer through institutionalized care?

BTW, there aren't enough foster homes in Canada for all the kids that go into care and the numbers continue to decline.  Foster care isn't actually a viable option.

So you assert that the cost of supporting the life of a person with severe special needs is too high and therefore people are justified in killing that life?  You might feel right at home at Auschwitz.  You can get reasonable off season flights.  It’s near Krakow in Poland.  

Edited February 15, 2020 by Zeitgeist

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

So you assert that the cost of supporting the life of a person with severe special needs is too high and therefore people are justified in killing that life?

I'm asserting that unless you are the one prepared, financially and emotionally, to support that life, then you do not have the right to judge those upon who the responsibility falls.  

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

You might feel right at home at Auschwitz. 

We're not talking about executing healthy people here so your attempt to paint me as some monster fails.  

As a society we regularly condemn people to death because it would cost too much to treat them; we regularly see news stories about children and adults who will die if our medical system doesn't pay 100s of thousands or even a million+ dollars for the medication that will either cure them or at least keep them alive a little longer.  Are you outraged by that?  Or is it just women who are forced into a "Sophie's Choice" decision who outrage you?

Edited February 16, 2020 by dialamah

[Zeitgeist]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

I'm asserting that unless you are the one prepared, financially and emotionally, to support that life, then you do not have the right to judge those upon who the responsibility falls.  

We're not talking about executing healthy people here so your attempt to paint me as some monster fails.  

As a society we regularly condemn people to death because it would cost too much to treat; we regularly see news stories about children and adults who will die if our medical system doesn't pay 100s of thousands or even a million+ dollars for the medication that will either cure them or at least keep them alive a little longer.  Are you outraged by that?  Or is it just women who are forced into a "Sophie's Choice" decision who outrage you?

Oh I understand you crystal clear.  Hitler saw the disabled and developmentally delayed as social burdens, inferiors fit only for the ovens.  

[dialamah]

13 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Oh I understand you crystal clear.  Hitler saw the disabled and developmentally delayed as social burdens, inferiors fit only for the ovens.  

Clearly you do not understand me.  Nor, apparently, do you understand the difference between genocide, eugenics, and a woman who has to decide whether or not to birth a child that will either die almost immediately after birth or require years of care to live a severely compromised life.

Also, you did not answer my question: are you as outraged by government policies that allow people to die because their life-saving medication is too expensive as you are about women who might have an abortion rather than birth a severely damaged baby.

[Zeitgeist]

3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Clearly you do not understand me.  Nor, apparently, do you understand the difference between genocide, eugenics, and a woman who has to decide whether or not to birth a child that will either die almost immediately after birth or require years of care to live a severely compromised life.

Also, you did not answer my question: are you as outraged by government policies that allow people to die because their life-saving medication is too expensive as you are about women who might have an abortion rather than birth a severely damaged baby.

One is passive and perhaps ignorant neglect the other is intentional.  

[Army Guy]

15 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Clearly you do not understand me.  Nor, apparently, do you understand the difference between genocide, eugenics, and a woman who has to decide whether or not to birth a child that will either die almost immediately after birth or require years of care to live a severely compromised life.

Also, you did not answer my question: are you as outraged by government policies that allow people to die because their life-saving medication is too expensive as you are about women who might have an abortion rather than birth a severely damaged baby.

But what about all the other abortions , abortions of healthy fetuses , the majority of abortions would fit in this group, we routinely give no more consideration to these, than throwing out the trash only in this case bio waste. most of these are performed because of inconvenience, to young, to lazy to wear a condoms... I guess we give it no more thought than those working the reception center at Auschwitz, you to the gas chamber, you to the work center... 

[dialamah]

19 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

But what about all the other abortions , abortions of healthy fetuses

This topic is about late term abortions, which are almost exclusively due to severe fetal abnormalities, and/or threat to mother's health/life.

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

One is passive and perhaps ignorant neglect the other is intentional.  

Really?  Refusing medication that would save or prolong a child's life or an adult's life is "passive neglect?".  I disagree; I think its choosing who will live or die depending on affordability.  It's sad,  very sad, for those who lose people they love.  But it's not really possible to keep everyone alive forever, or even how long we'd like to.   

In the same way,  it's a nice idea that every fetus should be born, and once born, be kept alive as long as possible, regardless of financial and emotional cost.  But it's not practical and some have to die, as sad as that is.  I don't have the heart to judge a woman who must decide if that child will die before birth or after.  I can't imagine carrying a daily reminder in my body of the grief and pain that await me in two or three months time just because someone else thinks I should 'just in case' the child does better than expected.  It would be an absolutely horrendous experience.  

Edited February 16, 2020 by dialamah

[Zeitgeist]

15 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Really?  Refusing medication that would save or prolong a child's life or an adult's life is "passive neglect?".  I disagree; I think its choosing who will live or die depending on affordability.  It's sad,  very sad, for those who lose people they love.  But it's not really possible to keep everyone alive forever, or even how long we'd like to.   

In the same way,  it's a nice idea that every fetus should be born, and once born, be kept alive as long as possible, regardless of financial and emotional cost.  But it's not practical and some have to die, as sad as that is.  I don't have the heart to judge a woman who must decide if that child will die before birth or after.  I can't imagine carrying a daily reminder in my body of the grief and pain that await me in two or three months time just because someone else thinks I should 'just in case' the child does better than expected.  It would be an absolutely horrendous experience.  

What?  There’s an ethical difference between funding medications/procedures that may or may not save lives and for which one might access funding through a charity or personal resources versus actively taking a life.  

Also, prohibiting or having strict rules preventing late term abortions doesn’t preclude covering catastrophic medication/surgery costs.  I support government funding of high cost medications for catastrophic illnesses.  

You have a worrisome morality, yet I see that the prevalence of these kinds of justifications from a militant fringe are how we end up without any legal restrictions on late term abortions in the third trimester, including up to a scheduled delivery date.  

Pretty dystopian when a woman’s right to choose extends to infant slaughter.  A baby that feels pain, cries out for comfort, and responds to voices is expendable, unworthy of protection from homicide.  

Edited February 16, 2020 by Zeitgeist

[dialamah]

4 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

You have a worrisome morality, yet I see that the prevalence of these kinds of justifications from a militant fringe

My views are actually the majority in Canada. 

4 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

without any legal restrictions on late term abortions in the third trimester, including up to a scheduled delivery date.  

These are rare and aren't carried out on healthy fetuses.  This is a made up issue by the militant religious right-wing fringe.

[Zeitgeist]

10 minutes ago, dialamah said:

My views are actually the majority in Canada. 

These are rare and aren't carried out on healthy fetuses.  This is a made up issue by the militant religious right-wing fringe.

Have you polled Canadians on this?  You don’t seem in tune with how most people think.  

[dialamah]

Ipsos poll shows 77 per cent of respondents feel abortion should be permitted.

"Among those in favour of abortion rights in Canada, just over half (53 per cent) said the procedure should be permitted whenever a woman decides she wants it, while one in four (24 per cent) favoured some limits."

Looks like I'm in the majority.

[Zeitgeist]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

Ipsos poll shows 77 per cent of respondents feel abortion should be permitted.

"Among those in favour of abortion rights in Canada, just over half (53 per cent) said the procedure should be permitted whenever a woman decides she wants it, while one in four (24 per cent) favoured some limits."

Looks like I'm in the majority.

Not at all.  “Among those in favour of abortion rights”

Read your own citations

Factor in those who don’t support abortion rights and your position is in a decisive minority.  

What’s more, morality isn’t about popularity.  Hitler was very popular.  Learn more on your Poland vacation.  

Edited February 16, 2020 by Zeitgeist

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Not at all.  “Among those in favour of abortion rights”

Read your own citations

You're right, I misread it.  Nontheless, my opinion is not "fringe" with about 40% of Canadians agreeing.  That's more than enough to elect a majority government, so hardly "fringe".

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

What’s more, morality isn’t about popularity

You were the one claiming popularity as a standard for morality when you claimed my opinion was held by a "militant fringe".

You bring up Hitler and Nazis; I invoke Godwin's Law, which declares your argument invalid and ends the discussion. 

[Zeitgeist]

8 hours ago, dialamah said:

You're right, I misread it.  Nontheless, my opinion is not "fringe" with about 40% of Canadians agreeing.  That's more than enough to elect a majority government, so hardly "fringe".

You were the one claiming popularity as a standard for morality when you claimed my opinion was held by a "militant fringe".

You bring up Hitler and Nazis; I invoke Godwin's Law, which declares your argument invalid and ends the discussion. 

There is no moral equivalence between your examples.  

Most Canadians do NOT support late term abortion.

Your belief that some babies (in the third trimester they can survive outside the womb) are better than others, some are expendable because of their imperfections, fits into a dark history of “selecting” who is worthy of existence.  

[Army Guy]

15 hours ago, dialamah said:

This topic is about late term abortions, which are almost exclusively due to severe fetal abnormalities, and/or threat to mother's health/life.

Your right , my bad, I mean you've already decided that most abortions should be treated like a regular procedure, like removing a wart, extracting a tooth thats what it is reduced to, so why would it be so hard to transfer it all of that …. to late term babies, the procedure is the same is it not. it's not that big of a jump is it...

You use the word "almost", as if it covers "ALL" late term abortions, what other causes are used to abort ? 

[dialamah]

38 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Your right , my bad, I mean you've already decided that most abortions should be treated like a regular procedure, like removing a wart, extracting a tooth thats what it is reduced to,

Clearly you either haven't read or you've chosen to ignore what I've written, so I won't waste my time with you.  

[WestCanMan]

20 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Hitler saw the disabled and developmentally delayed as social burdens, inferiors fit only for the ovens.  

1) You're conflating "developmentally delayed" with "severely crippling mental and physical disabilities" 

2) Regardless of what decision you make, you're making a decision to essentially kill someone, or maybe more than one person. The medicare system isn't a bottomless well of money, medical equipment and human resources. Resources spent in one place aren't available in another. So when you tie up doctors and nurses and medical equipment on one person for forty years it forces you to make tough decisions in other places. Less research money for MS or Cystic Fibrosis. Less beds available at the sick children's hospital so healthy kids with a chance at life are sent home a bit earlier than they should have been. Less money is available for people suffering mental health issues. Longer wait times for surgeries or in emergency rooms. Less staff working in trauma units, etc. It may come as a shock to you that people in the medical profession have to make tough decisions all the time.

Watch MASH one day. Their sad version of triage included letting some people go, or amputating a leg that they could have saved under better circumstances, if their treatment would require so much medical attention that it would jeopardize the lives of other people who they knew for sure they could save. 

Unfortunately we have no choice but to take the amount of resources available and manage them in the best way possible to do the greatest amount of good possible. We can't just do every single thing that every single person in the country really wants. 

[Yzermandius19]

On 2/15/2020 at 8:15 PM, dialamah said:

 late term abortions, which are almost exclusively due to severe fetal abnormalities, and/or threat to mother's health/life.

And when they aren't, they should be banned. If you want abortion to be legal in all circumstances, then you are just as big of an extremist as those who want it banned in all circumstances, and the latter is the strawman you want to argue against to make your argument sound reasonable.

Edited February 17, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

And when they aren't, they should be banned. 

I think we could all agree that killing a healthy baby in the last trimester shouldn't be part of the program. 

There are lots of families looking to adopt a newborn.

[Yzermandius19]

Just now, WestCanMan said:

I think we could all agree that killing a healthy baby in the last trimester shouldn't be part of the program. 

Everyone who isn't a crazy extremist anyway.