Abortion Debate

[Catchme]

If I have one piece of advice for you Catchme, it's not to defend a moral argument with a peice of paper. You present some excellent points in defense of your pro-choice viewpoint, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms isn't one of them.

It is not a moral argument. Your morals come from your belief in religion. My Right to Freedom of Conscience stands right beside your right to freedom of religion. Your religious beliefs cannot trump MY Right of Conscience

Think about what that says and means geoffrey.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ...

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;

b ) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

d) freedom of association.

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived

[geoffrey]

It is not a moral argument. Your morals come from your belief in religion. My Right to Freedom of Conscience stands right beside your right to freedom of religion. Your religious beliefs cannot trump MY Right of Conscience

Actually my morals come from a philosophical reflection on the issue, with logic and ethics. I'd never consider my religion in my opinions about policies that affect other people. I think I've explained my reasoning very clearly without reference to a Bible, or a God or some moral commandment that "abortion is wrong, do not do it, end of story."

Think about what that says and means geoffrey.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ...

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;

I don't wish you to believe in my faith, that's not my desire. I hope you find faith in whatever is most meaningful to you. My decision to be not morally ok with abortion could be accepted by anyone of any faith, agnostic or atheist.

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived

This is the point of conflict between our view points, at least the moralistic ones (like I said, I don't think abortion should be legally banned as it causes far more death, pain and suffering if it is... I'm pragmatic in that sense). You believe that a pregnancy can be terminated by a woman because it is part of their person. I don't agree. I believe that a fetus is protected by that same security of the person argument.

A fetus is a seperate 'entity' in some important regards. It doesn't share a mother's DNA for example, it's unique in that sense. Not a strong argument, but regardless of that.

Personally, I think until we can reach a ethically (and morally from a secular philosophical point of view) suitable line of when a human gains personhood then abortion should be regarded as immoral. Pragmatical philosophy would require us to spare the lives until a truth has been found in regards to where that line needs to be drawn.

Where do you draw the line Catchme?

[Catchme]

Actually my morals come from a philosophical reflection on the issue, with logic and ethics. I'd never consider my religion in my opinions about policies that affect other people. I think I've explained my reasoning very clearly without reference to a Bible, or a God or some moral commandment that "abortion is wrong, do not do it, end of story."

Think about what that says and means geoffrey.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ...

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;

I don't wish you to believe in my faith, that's not my desire.

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived

This is the point of conflict between our view points, at least the moralistic ones (like I said, I don't think abortion should be legally banned as it causes far more death, pain and suffering if it is... I'm pragmatic in that sense). You believe that a pregnancy can be terminated by a woman because it is part of their person. I don't agree. I believe that a fetus is protected by that same security of the person argument.

A fetus is a seperate 'entity' in some important regards. It doesn't share a mother's DNA for example, it's unique in that sense. Not a strong argument, but regardless of that.

Personally, I think until we can reach a ethically (and morally from a secular philosophical point of view) suitable line of when a human gains personhood then abortion should be regarded as immoral. Pragmatical philosophy would require us to spare the lives until a truth has been found in regards to where that line needs to be drawn.

Where do you draw the line Catchme?

Where do you get your basis for logic and ethics geoffery, as they are not based in Canadian Law?

The Law of Canada already determines when there is "life" and that is at birth, based upon legal, scientific and medical reasoning, not upon emotionally based individiual morals and ethics founded upon a religious premise.

It does share the mothers DNA. DNA existence is NOT life and means nothing in consideration of right of conscience, right of self determine/liberty.

No, perhaps you don't want me to believe in your faith, which was not actually my point, but you want your religiouslly based beliefs to supercede my rights.

There is a reason why Freedom of Conscience is entrenched in our Rights.

The definition of Conscience:

the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good b : a faculty, power, or principle enjoining good acts.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conscience

This means each individual determines/judges their own conduct by Right.

I have already stated where I drawn the line, at the Legal Canadian Definition of When Life Begins, at Birth. Prior to that there is no "Life" to have rights.

[margrace]

I don't think the right to abortion is going to go away for the following reasons.

1) Women do not want to die on the couches of back street abortionist as they used to.

2) Although men on here seem to be claiming the right of some say in what happens to their almighty seed very few men will take responsibility for giving the result a good life. Too costly aye.

3) Its always easier to tell someone else what to do than to take responsibility for that demand.

4) If women have to stop work and raise those children it would be too hard on the economy.

5) Where does a woman's rights end and a man's begin. She has to bear the pain, it has been an old saying in our family for years that if the man had to have the first baby there would not be a second.

6) Every had kidney stones, well any nurse will tell you that that is the equivilant of having a baby and they take great delight when a man is in the situation.

7) The old saying was Keep em barefoot in the winter and pregnant in the summer.

8) When the Russians took Berlin they sent in a group of soldiers that they knew would rape any woman they found. Rape has always been the reward for the spoils of war.

9) Men are good at siteing the times that women have abused or killed their children, what are the stats on that, anyone know?

[scribblet]

There is still the issue of terminating human life and when it begins. As I said, I'm pro choice with restrictions on late term, at one point at didn't accept even that, but have come to realize that there has to be a cut off, we cannot murder a being which is at viable stage unless the life of the mother is at stake.

The issue is age old, it will never go away, personally I think Canada is best to leave the situation as it is, no law at all.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

As I said before... woman are free to do what they want to do to their bodies, but that doesn't mean anyone has to help them.

The cost of abortions should not be covered under any provincial or private health plan - just like treatments for STD's are not covered by private drug plans (at least that I am aware of). You bring it on yourself, you deal with the consequences - only then you will learn the meaning of 'consequence'.

[M.Dancer]

There is still the issue of terminating human life and when it begins. As I said, I'm pro choice with restrictions on late term, at one point at didn't accept even that, but have come to realize that there has to be a cut off, we cannot murder a being which is at viable stage unless the life of the mother is at stake.

The issue is age old, it will never go away, personally I think Canada is best to leave the situation as it is, no law at all.

I think there needs be a law. And it should be something like this.

1/Something like abortions can only be performed by licensed doctors.

2/Abortions can only be performed on women.

3/Abortions must have the consent of the pregnant woman.

[Riverwind]

The cost of abortions should not be covered under any provincial or private health plan - just like treatments for STD's are not covered by private drug plans (at least that I am aware of).

What an absurd position. Carriers of STDs are health risks to the public and providing free treatment is essential to protecting the public. When it comes to abortion you have no right to impose your morals on others. Most people have no problems with abortions an recognize that an unwanted child will cost the system a lot more than an abortion. Therefore it makes sense to cover the cost of abortions under provincial health plans.

[Figleaf]

Personally, I think until we can reach a ethically (and morally from a secular philosophical point of view) suitable line of when a human gains personhood then abortion should be regarded as immoral.

Interesting statement -- But it begs the question in a way, doesn't it? You suggest that until we reach an 'ethically suitable line' then we must, ethically, place the line where you suggest.

Pragmatical philosophy would require us to spare the lives until a truth has been found in regards to where that line needs to be drawn.

I disagree, because, on the other side of the balance from you 'pragmatic' concern for fetuses is the very real fact that any rules the state places around fetuses are direct limits on the human freedoms of pregnant women.

I think you need to take that specifically into account in your argument. What your full position amount to is: 'Until someone proves (whatever 'proof' means) that fetuses are not people, I demand that where necessary the state coercively impose childbirth regardless of the wishes of a pregnant woman.'

And you need to address and defend the part in italics specifically.

[Black Dog]

So a woman has all the rights yet the man carries all the responsibility? Please. With all of today's birth control methods, a woman is at least equally responsibile in preventing pregnancy.

I don't think any one would argue otherwise. The point Rue was making would seem to pretain to those instances where men seek to avoid their responsibility for the deed.

A chimpansee could probably be taught to put on a condom or take a pill.

It doesn't even cost money for condoms in our society, like I said, it's not an education issue, it's just irresponsibility.

Condoms fail, pills are forgotten. Things happen. And yeah: it is an education issue. There['s a strong statistical correlation between sex education (of the comprehensive variety, not the "this is sex, now don't do it" kind) and low rates of teen pregnancy and abortion.

Personally, I think until we can reach a ethically (and morally from a secular philosophical point of view) suitable line of when a human gains personhood then abortion should be regarded as immoral. Pragmatical philosophy would require us to spare the lives until a truth has been found in regards to where that line needs to be drawn.

You've stated you oppose legal proscription on abortion: so what good is denouncing something as immoral if there's no means to enforce that? After all, there are many behaviours that are widely considered immoral (adultery, for one) that society cannot halt. Also: given that the ultimate arbiter of morality is the individual, then how do you propose to reach some kind of moral consensus?

[Chuck U. Farlie]

The cost of abortions should not be covered under any provincial or private health plan - just like treatments for STD's are not covered by private drug plans (at least that I am aware of).

What an absurd position. Carriers of STDs are health risks to the public and providing free treatment is essential to protecting the public. When it comes to abortion you have no right to impose your morals on others. Most people have no problems with abortions an recognize that an unwanted child will cost the system a lot more than an abortion. Therefore it makes sense to cover the cost of abortions under provincial health plans.

I didn't say STD's shouldn't be covered... I said that under most private drug plans the treatment for STD's are not covered. I didn't say I agreed with that, I merely mentioned that.

I suggest that non-essential abortions not be covered by public health plans. If I am being responsible, then why should my tax dollars go to bail someone out who is not being responsible? What it comes down to is if you are not prepared to accept the burden of having a child, keep your pants on! I am not trying to instill my morals on others, I am pointing out cause and effect.

The #1 cause of pregnancy is sex... if you avoid sex you most likely won't get pregnant and therefore won't have to burden yourself with a baby or burden the tax payers who fund the healthcare system with your abortion. I don't see how my personal morals (or lack thereof) play any part in what I just said.

[Drea]

If a woman cannot pay for an abortion -- how is she expected to pay to raise a child for 18 years?

Would the taxpayer rather pay for a one-time procedure (abortion) or pay for the two of them (mom and child) for the next 18 years?

[Riverwind]

I suggest that non-essential abortions not be covered by public health plans. If I am being responsible, then why should my tax dollars go to bail someone out who is not being responsible?

It is a false arguement. Nobody can reasonably expect the gov't spend money only on things that they support. The only criteria to justify spending is whether a majority of people believe that spending is justified.

Furthermore, is the gov't really saving money by forcing a welfare mom to have another child when she wants an abortion?

[Chuck U. Farlie]

If a woman cannot pay for an abortion -- how is she expected to pay to raise a child for 18 years?

Would the taxpayer rather pay for a one-time procedure (abortion) or pay for the two of them (mom and child) for the next 18 years?

Shouldn't be paying for either. Should make laws even harder on deadbeat dads and people should be making it on their own. The world (and society) owes you nothing, you should get what you need through work. Assistance should only be provided to those in times of dire circumstances, not those that are too lazy or too irresponsible to lift a finger.

When my old man came here from Europe in the 50's, if he didn't work, he'd starve. If he had knocked up a woman and refused to pay, he would be a blacksheep in the community - he wouldn't have been given a job and his reputation would be mud. He, and all others at that time had responsibilities.

How many welfare Mom's have multiple children for additional welfare money from x amount of fathers? I've volunteered for organizations that give free groceries to these people... I've seen how they live. It's pathetic and disgusting.

What this whole discussion is getting to now (abortions, welfare, etc) is people not taking responsibility for their own actions, and the government policies that allow for people to be irresponsible... bail out programs.

Maybe that is why Canada is considered such a great country... you can be as lazy and irresponsible as you want, and no problem - the government will still rescue you.

[Catchme]

So a woman has all the rights yet the man carries all the responsibility? Please. With all of today's birth control methods, a woman is at least equally responsibile in preventing pregnancy.

You've stated you oppose legal proscription on abortion: so what good is denouncing something as immoral if there's no means to enforce that? After all, there are many behaviours that are widely considered immoral (adultery, for one) that society cannot halt. Also: given that the ultimate arbiter of morality is the individual, then how do you propose to reach some kind of moral consensus?

How does the man carry all the responsibility, they never have, so how exactly does he think they do now?

Of course, there is no reaching of moral consensus, as those who are anti-CHOICE, want their individual perceptions of morality to trump all others. Well at least, 69% understand full well ALL have Rights to; Freedrom of Conscience, Freedom of Liberaty/Self-determination, Universal access of health care and Freedom of Security/Privacy.

[Black Dog]

I suggest that non-essential abortions not be covered by public health plans. If I am being responsible, then why should my tax dollars go to bail someone out who is not being responsible?

Then, if you speed, crack up you car and are paralyzed, I should not have to pay for your irresponsibility? Ditto if you smoke and get cancer, eat fatty foods and have a heart attack, live in a bad neighbourhood and get mugged etc etc. Where do you propose we draw the line, hmmm?

In any case, I reckon the cost of subsidizing abortions is miniscule compared to the social costs that would result from the inevitable increase in unwanted births.

The #1 cause of pregnancy is sex... if you avoid sex you most likely won't get pregnant and therefore won't have to burden yourself with a baby or burden the tax payers who fund the healthcare system with your abortion

Yeah because asking people not to screw is such a realistic solution...

How many welfare Mom's have multiple children for additional welfare money from x amount of fathers?

Sounds like a myth to me.

What this whole discussion is getting to now (abortions, welfare, etc) is people not taking responsibility for their own actions, and the government policies that allow for people to be irresponsible... bail out programs.

On the contrary: I think state-funded abortions promote responsiblity. After all, if you're in a situation where you are pregnant but cannot handle having a child, then abortion is the responsible choice.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Black Dog,

QUOTE

How many welfare Mom's have multiple children for additional welfare money from x amount of fathers?

Sounds like a myth to me.

Not really, for I have actually known a couple of 'welfare moms'. I won't say that they actually connived to have more children, but they sure as hell did nothing to prevent it, either. They also knew exactly what the 'pay scales' were for every child you have to support was worth, oddly enough.

One of them, a young mother (I would guess 17-18) in my area, was offered a part-time job, and her response was: "I can't work, Welfare won't let me". I almost spat out my coffee. An extreme case of 'looking at the same coin from different sides'.

[Black Dog]

Not really, for I have actually known a couple of 'welfare moms'. I won't say that they actually connived to have more children, but they sure as hell did nothing to prevent it, either.

And you know this how?

They also knew exactly what the 'pay scales' were for every child you have to support was worth, oddly enough.

That's not particularily odd at all.

One of them, a young mother (I would guess 17-18) in my area, was offered a part-time job, and her response was: "I can't work, Welfare won't let me". I almost spat out my coffee. An extreme case of 'looking at the same coin from different sides'.

Yeah, well there's bound to be abusers in any system. Doesn't invalidate the need for the system. But that's a digression: Chuck was saying that there are people who get pregnant just to collect welfare. Which really has F.A. to do with abortion, except that access to publicly funded abortion is probably good for the welfare system.

[M.Dancer]

If a woman cannot pay for an abortion -- how is she expected to pay to raise a child for 18 years?

Would the taxpayer rather pay for a one-time procedure (abortion) or pay for the two of them (mom and child) for the next 18 years?

Shouldn't be paying for either.

Yeah, that's what we need....some politician to decide which which medical procedures are morally acceptable or not...

[Figleaf]

If it becomes possible to trans-plant an embryo and the father offers to do so, does the mother have the right to abortion?

The mother has the right to have the embryo removed from her body. As long as the mother consents, she can assign the embryo to the father or anyone else for gestation. If she doesn't consent then I would say the father is out of luck despite his wishes.

I'm not sure I agree. If the woman wants to be free of the pregnancy, why should she be able to control where the embryo goes after that?

[Canadian Blue]

If a woman cannot pay for an abortion -- how is she expected to pay to raise a child for 18 years?

Give it up for adoption.

How does the man carry all the responsibility, they never have, so how exactly does he think they do now?

Of course, there is no reaching of moral consensus, as those who are anti-CHOICE, want their individual perceptions of morality to trump all others. Well at least, 69% understand full well ALL have Rights to; Freedrom of Conscience, Freedom of Liberaty/Self-determination, Universal access of health care and Freedom of Security/Privacy.

Unless that person believes the right to life trumps other right's as well. Especially if the belief is that life starts at conception.

[Black Dog]

Give it up for adoption.

Easy to say. But not always an option.

[Catchme]

Dear Black Dog,

QUOTE

How many welfare Mom's have multiple children for additional welfare money from x amount of fathers?

Sounds like a myth to me.

Not really, for I have actually known a couple of 'welfare moms'. I won't say that they actually connived to have more children, but they sure as hell did nothing to prevent it, either. They also knew exactly what the 'pay scales' were for every child you have to support was worth, oddly enough.

One of them, a young mother (I would guess 17-18) in my area, was offered a part-time job, and her response was: "I can't work, Welfare won't let me". I almost spat out my coffee. An extreme case of 'looking at the same coin from different sides'.

Uh, what does alleged stories of welfare moms having multiple children from x amount of fathers have to do with abortion besides nothing?

The benefit pay scales come in pamphlets at income benefits offices nothing to odd about that.

I would bet that there are a good many circumstances, if not all the time, where a 17 year old mom on income assistance would be told she was not allowed to have a job by the ministry. First of all that 17 year old is a minor itself in a position of responsibility over another minor, most likely an infant. They, in essence and fact, are both wards of the court. The court would deem the first and primary responsibility of the 17 year old was learn how to be a parent, how to look after a household and be a parent. A part-time min wage job would not be in the best interests of the 17 year old or the infant child. Moreover, the costs incurred for a sitter, by the very same ministry would most likely equal that of the pay the 17 old received.

There would be NO gains for; the 17 year, or the child, or society, by the 17 year old taking a min wage part-time job.

Things really should be examined for veracity before one lets one's personal biases factor into perceptions thereby disproportionately skewing them to a negative contextual value.

Now again, young women having children has nothing to do in discussing abortion, other thantoken mention of pro-choice having occurred.

[jefferiah]

If a woman cannot pay for an abortion -- how is she expected to pay to raise a child for 18 years?

Would the taxpayer rather pay for a one-time procedure (abortion) or pay for the two of them (mom and child) for the next 18 years?

Shouldn't be paying for either.

Yeah, that's what we need....some politician to decide which which medical procedures are morally acceptable or not...

Shouldnt they at least be medical concerns M. Dancer. You could call a boob job a valid surgery or a medical procedure. People can argue the morality of it, but it is legal----nonetheless are they covered by medicare. You have to stop equating heart surgery with an abortion in a case with no medical concern. People dont go for heart surgery for the hell of it. You cant go into a hospital and say "yeah Doc I want some surgery." There is no slippery slope argument about it. On the one hand you have surgeries for medical conditions where a doctor determines surgery is needed or recommended. On the other hand you have abortion which is self-determined in most cases. The charter already allows for public funding if the pregnancy constitutes a health condition-----it is only in these cases that you can make a comparison to a smoker or a fatty.

Abortion is legal, so Catch Me can stop harping about her right to self determine as if she is so oppressed by society.

[jefferiah]

This is why we call it Health Care!!!!! When a doctor decides something is needed in order to keep you healthy, we have Health Care to take care of it for us.