To What Extent Do You Support Abortion?

[WestCanMan]

After you vote, please comment on where you voted. 

[WestCanMan]

I chose the 3rd option: Up until approximately 16 weeks it should be legal, and only for health/medical reasons thereafter.

[Aristides]

I voted for between 3 and 5, which is what we already have.

[West]

I chose only for medical reasons. Still undecided on rape... would rather there be an "abort the rapist" option

Edited July 4, 2022 by West

[Nationalist]

26 minutes ago, West said:

I chose only for medical reasons. Still undecided on rape... would rather there be an "abort the rapist" option

I'm down for the "abort the rapist", but I also think there are valid reasons for abortions before the fetus is...a person. But there has to be a real medical reason.

[Aristides]

7 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

 

Edited July 4, 2022 by Aristides

[Yzermandius19]

7 hours ago, Nationalist said:

I'm down for the "abort the rapist", but I also think there are valid reasons for abortions before the fetus is...a person. But there has to be a real medical reason.

the fetus is a person the whole time

[Nationalist]

11 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

the fetus is a person the whole time

That's debatable. But after 3 months, it is no longer debatable.

[Infidel Dog]

44 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

That's debatable. But after 3 months, it is no longer debatable.

Might depend on how you define "person." If you're seeing it as a fully developed organism, maybe not. As a human life the experts seem to agree it is what it is though. A human life:

Quote

"Development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an ovum to form a zygote; this cell is the beginning of a new human being."
Moore, Keith L., The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, page 12, W.B. Saunders Co., 2003

"In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun."
Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., 1974

"A new individual is created when the elements of a potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum."
Encyclopedia Britannica, "Pregnancy," page 968, 15th Edition, Chicago 1974

"Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the femal gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote."
T.W. Sadler, Langman's Medical Embryology, 10th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006. p. 11

""Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte."
Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

Someone was saying earlier a fertilized egg is not a child. He said it a few times.

Technically he may be correct - just as a child is not a man (or woman, for that matter. ) but left to the genetic plan embedded within the fertilized egg it will become a baby which will develop into the definition of child which will become man. 

The guy with the definition has decided he knows when that human life can be ended along that chain. I disagree. I don't think he does. (And he's wrong so much the odds say I'm probably right. .)

I voted for the third option in the above poll but I've been moving up the options for some time now. I'll be at choice # 1 soon, I think.

Edited July 5, 2022 by Infidel Dog

[WestCanMan]

19 hours ago, Aristides said:

I voted for between 3 and 5, which is what we already have.

I'm closer to you than I am to the other conservatives on this one regarding where the law should eventually land, we just disagree on how the laws should be created. 

I don't think that a girl should ever be forced to have a baby if she was raped, I think that's heartless and silly. I don't think that people are thinking about how they'd feel if their own 15-yr-o daughter was raped and had to go through gr. 10 with a burgeoning belly. 

I think that a fetus is just an unfeeling blob at week 11 and I'd have no compunctions about an abortion at that age, sad though it may be. 

20 weeks is a lot higher than I'd like it to be, a 5-month-old fetus already has a decidedly human form with functioning muscles and a brain. Still, I'd choose this option over forced pregnancy.

Then, outside of serious medical reasons, it looks like murder to me. I know that a murder charge would be quite harsh, and I wouldn't expect that a majority of people feel the way I do about it, but I would personally consider it murder.  

After 7 months, definitely murder. Lock 'er up. I know that diehard loonies are against me on this one and I don't care at all. Abortion isn't painless for a 7-month old fetus, they know that they're being murdered. 

[OftenWrong]

I voted somewhere between 3 and 5. However it depends on what is meant by “support”. What are the consequences? I don’t support giving the state any right to intervention in what a woman does to her body. Unfortunately, even though I dont like the idea, she has full rights in my opinion. So technically my answer is 5.

As far as I know Canada has no abortion laws whatsoever, either restricting or allowing. That is probably best imo. Don’t try to debate it, don’t try to resolve the issue. You won’t. All it does is increase the level of social discord.

Despite the freedom to do so, there are no lineups for late third trimester abortions. Because people have a conscience of their own. We need no bureaucrat to tell us.

That is why I raise this warning to all ye, Candians. Woe betide those politicians who are keen to inject this artificial debate into our politics. Whoever is doing that, that man is the enemy of civil society.

Edited July 5, 2022 by OftenWrong

[WestCanMan]

It appears that some people are allowing themselves to be forced to the extremes at 1 and 5 just to distance themselves from what people on the opposite side of the debate are saying. 

Just ignore the lunacy.

When you're making sense, and you know that you're making sense, stick to your guns.

Stay inside of the bell curve if you know thats where the reasonable people are. 

If your daughter or granddaughter was raped the last thing that you'd want is to be raising that man's progeny instead of watching your family member have a normal childhood, go through university, have a chance at a career. #1 is stupid. Don't just go there to be as far from 5 as possible. 

If you went through 19 years of school & university to become a Dr the last thing that you'd want to do is kill a healthy nine-month-old fetus just because the mom changer her mind. #5 is stupid. Don't just go there to be as far from 1 as possible. 

Think of the reasonable people whose side you'll be on, not the kooks who just aren't far enough away from you. 

[herbie]

I now support retroactive abortion. As some of your Mom's would if they saw your posts?

[Legato]

3 and 5

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

I now support retroactive abortion. As some of your Mom's would if they saw your posts?

Your English teacher definitely supports it. 

[Yzermandius19]

7 hours ago, Nationalist said:

That's debatable. But after 3 months, it is no longer debatable.

there is zero scientific basis to the claim that it isn't a person

it's a human being in the early stages of development, right from conception

[WestCanMan]

13 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

there is zero scientific basis to the claim that it isn't a person

it's a human being in the early stages of development, right from conception

For sure it is, but it is no more cognizant of anything than a tumour at conception. It's not until it's 15 weeks or so that it starts making choices based on external stimuli. 

Women have very real, life-altering concerns about having a baby. Stigma, stretch marks, permanent & significant changes to her body or her reproductive parts, depression if she gives the baby up for adoption, or a career-killing responsibility if she keeps it. 

That's a lot to go through because of the naiveté of being an uninformed child or making a teen mistake or being the victim of a rape, etc. 

I completely understand that there are circumstances where a woman would responsibly come to the determination that an abortion was critical to her personal well-being. That choice would also make way for her to get into a position later in life where she's ready to be a good mom, and raise children within a healthier family and have a better chance at life. Think of it this way, she could have two children when she's single and poor and they're gonna have a really tough go in life or she could grow into a more mature adult, start a career, get married, have a stable home environment, and do a proper job of raising children. 

I personally think that 16 weeks is a lot of time for them to make up their mind. At some point it is a cognizant human, and killing it becomes inhumane. 

[traveler52]

I fully support the Right of Woman to decide for herself what surgical procedures and or medications she can and cannot received.  The Government has no business dictating a Woman's Health.

[Yzermandius19]

48 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

For sure it is, but it is no more cognizant of anything than a tumour at conception. It's not until it's 15 weeks or so that it starts making choices based on external stimuli. 

Women have very real, life-altering concerns about having a baby. Stigma, stretch marks, permanent & significant changes to her body or her reproductive parts, depression if she gives the baby up for adoption, or a career-killing responsibility if she keeps it. 

That's a lot to go through because of the naiveté of being an uninformed child or making a teen mistake or being the victim of a rape, etc. 

I completely understand that there are circumstances where a woman would responsibly come to the determination that an abortion was critical to her personal well-being. That choice would also make way for her to get into a position later in life where she's ready to be a good mom, and raise children within a healthier family and have a better chance at life. Think of it this way, she could have two children when she's single and poor and they're gonna have a really tough go in life or she could grow into a more mature adult, start a career, get married, have a stable home environment, and do a proper job of raising children. 

I personally think that 16 weeks is a lot of time for them to make up their mind. At some point it is a cognizant human, and killing it becomes inhumane. 

it's inhumane to kill it at any point

just because it's not cognizant yet doesn't morally justify it

the same way killing someone in a coma who will come out of it in several weeks would be inhumane

the very real concerns you listed are not more important than life

likewise a child being born into a rough situation is not grounds to kill it to prevent from being in that situation 

you don't just get to eliminate life from the equation because you empathize with pregnant women in tough circumstances or how rough the child's life may be

Edited July 5, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

there is zero scientific basis to the claim that it isn't a person

it's a human being in the early stages of development, right from conception

In your opinion.

Look...I find the idea of abortion rather abhorrent. But there are cases, like rape, where an abortion is warranted.

Now...a fetus doesn't really take humanoid form until about 12 weeks. Is it a life? Yes. Is it a "person" yet? I'm on the fence on that.

[Yzermandius19]

7 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

In your opinion.

Look...I find the idea of abortion rather abhorrent. But there are cases, like rape, where an abortion is warranted.

Now...a fetus doesn't really take humanoid form until about 12 weeks. Is it a life? Yes. Is it a "person" yet? I'm on the fence on that.

I'm okay with allowing a legal exemption for rape, out of pragmatism

but that doesn't change the fact that an innocent human life is being terminated

the only moral exemption is if the life or long term health of the mother is significantly threatened

Edited July 6, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[Goddess]

15 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

or long term health of the mother is significantly threatened

Who would determine what is a significant amount of risk that women should take?  

And how much risk is acceptable?  Is it a 50% chance of death?  75%?  100%?

I think each woman and her doctor are in the best position to determine how much risk she is willing to take.  A woman with 2 or 3 children already may not want to risk it at even 50%, leaving her children parentless and in foster care or motherless.  Another woman may feel 50% is an okay risk.

These decisions are best left to each woman to determine, based on her own circumstances in life.

[Dougie93]

I went with three

realpoltiik political compromise

 

[Dougie93]

in the case of Roe v. Wade however, my only issue is states rights

so if a state votes to make abortion an absolute right, I would defend that state's right to do so

[Dougie93]

in the case of Canada, contrary to popular sentiment, there is no right to abortion in Canada

there is no law governing abortion in Canada at all, the law was overturned, and then not replaced

as a libertarian, I do not oppose that neither