Abortion Debate

[Catchme]

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.

Life according to our Canadian Law is when the first breath is taken and not before. Right to Life is founded upon that medical and scientific principal.

Why should a religion get to change laws that are based upon facts, to what their beliefs are, that have NO basis in fact? It shouldn't and it doesn't.

Right of Religion does not have the power of veto over ALL other Rights. Right to Conscience exists prior to Right of Religion. Religion is a belief and you have a Right to believe whatever you want religious wise. But you have no Right to force others to adhere to your religious beliefs, that is an infringement of Liberty Rghts.

You see, it is this way:

Religious beliefs have no Rights, people just have the Right to have them, whatever they are. If one religion gets to impose their beliefs, ALL religions would get to impose their beliefs, such is the Right's of Equality. That is why religious Right only means the right to believe how you want and not be persecuted for them.

So, now you can see why religious beliefs cannot trump ACTUAL Rights

[jefferiah]

Once again Catch Me i point out that medicare covers necessary medical procedures. A doctor determines if a surgery is needed, and then medicare will fund it. You cant self-determine to have a surgery without a doctors recommendation that this is beneficial for you. So dont play games with this. The charter already says that when pregnancy constitutes an adverse medical condition as determined by a doctor, that it shall, like any other medical condition be treated with public funding. Public funding does not pay for surgeries people want without medical advice. People have the right to nip and tuck to improve their looks, but just because it is a surgery does not mean it should be contained under the health care system. Aknowlegde this argument, and stop screaming on and on about people trying to trump your rights. Abortion is legal.

[Black Dog]

You have to stop equating heart surgery with an abortion in a case with no medical concern.

People don't get abortions for the hell of it either.

[geoffrey]

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

So long as it doesn't interfere with another's right to life or conscience. That's the issue at hand Catchme. I wouldn't disagree if there was consensus on the beginning of life.

But as long as you come out with ignorant statements like "there is no other side," then my efforts here are futile. You'll never be convinced that there is even the possibility that your wrong. I've already accepted that I may be wrong, and I'm looking for an answer. You've determined that as long as a fetus in inside a woman, it's fair game.

Let me ask you to defend that premise then, what fundamentally changes the instant a baby is born?? Are you morally ok with abortions during labour?

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.

Canadian laws have promoted all sorts of immoral stances. Chinese head taxes, Japanese internment to name a few. How about the hundreds of years that US slave owners were able to defend their 'property' by claiming like you do, that the law gives them a right to a strong nigger to clean their house and to harvest their crops?

Using the law to defend morality is silly and any secular ethicist, philosopher would strongly agree with me on that basis. Morality exists outside of the law, the law is just the way society enforces the morality of the majority.

The law can be, and often is, terribly wrong.

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.

I'm in no way supporting that choice. But then a man should really be able to kill their unborn child (or scrap of worthless tissue) by whatever means one does such thing and only get a slap on the wrist assault charge if they so desired following the logic of most of the pro-choicers on this board.

I'm sure that a man that killed his unwanted child even if he inflicted no real damage on the woman would draw widespread outrage in this country (as it should)... so there is a bit of a double standard here.

Like I said, it's either alive and protected or a scrap of tissue that can be destroyed without much consequence to whoever destroyed it.

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.

I'm not opposed to education, I'm saying our current system is sufficient so now it's just irresponsibility.

If the guy is using condoms and the woman is using the pill then your chances of having a double failure of both are in the one in hundreds of thousands. Responsibility can negate nearly all risk.

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?

Society does have some unianimously accepted morals. Killing other people is wrong. That's why we have a law against murder.

That being said, your right, many immoral acts do go without punishment... mostly because they are involved in the private dealings of individuals, a place where I say the state has little right to interfere.

But abortion (assuming life at conception) means that someone has be deprived of their liberty, so really I say it falls into murder category on that basis... again, assuming life at conception which I cannot prove (and you cannot disprove... a big moral conumdrum).

Someone is losing rights either way philosophically... if we prevent women from having abortions than a woman is losing some rights towards conscience I suppose... definitely towards security of person I think. If we allow it, then the child is losing far more (all of their rights). That's why I say until a consensus is reached or at least a reasonable proof is given, we need to look at this from a utiliarian standpoint and say... "ok, if both sides are right at the same time (they cannot be disproven) then we must accept the solution with the least harm is the most moral."

You seem like you know what your talking about with ethics BD, what flaw do you see in my reasoning?

[Riverwind]

I'm sure that a man that killed his unwanted child even if he inflicted no real damage on the woman would draw widespread outrage in this country (as it should)... so there is a bit of a double standard here.

The scrap of tissue is part of the woman's body. Cutting off your own finger is your choice - cutting off someone else's finger is aggravated assault.

I think you are going at this the wrong way - woman should have the right to chose whether they carry the baby to term but they should not have the right to demand child support if the father makes his wishes clear before the baby is born. If the woman still chooses to carry the baby to term knowing that the father has no financial obligation then that is her choice. If she did not inform the father then the father should also be free of all obligations.

Woman should have the right to make choices but they have no right to impose the consequences of their choices on another.

[geoffrey]

I'm sure that a man that killed his unwanted child even if he inflicted no real damage on the woman would draw widespread outrage in this country (as it should)... so there is a bit of a double standard here.

The scrap of tissue is part of the woman's body. Cutting off your own finger is your choice - cutting off someone else's finger is aggravated assault.

I agree... but something tells me most people would believe that killing of a fetus goes beyond a broken bone.

[Catchme]

The scrap of tissue is part of the woman's body. Cutting off your own finger is your choice - cutting off someone else's finger is aggravated assault.

I agree... but something tells me most people would believe that killing of a fetus goes beyond a broken bone.

Well, whatever that something is, telling you that, is wrong. We even have a current poll showing that you would be 69% wrong in fact.

There is NO killing of anything going on, most people understand that. In fact 69% do. There is NO life to kill until a breath is taken. Prior to that, it is cell division occurring in a woman's body. Cell division, that has potential to be life once the first breath is taken out side of the host body.

Plus you said borken bone, riverwind said cut off finger, minimized compare exaggerations for emotional effect does not equal facts and law.

[guyser]

I think you are going at this the wrong way - woman should have the right to chose whether they carry the baby to term but they should not have the right to demand child support if the father makes his wishes clear before the baby is born. If the woman still chooses to carry the baby to term knowing that the father has no financial obligation then that is her choice. If she did not inform the father then the father should also be free of all obligations.

Woman should have the right to make choices but they have no right to impose the consequences of their choices on another.

Interesting debate going on here.

The problem that jumps out at me on your post is that the rights of the child are now dumped. Just because Daddy makes his intentions clear should not deny the child access to his dad. If mom does not notify the father then he should not be free of all obligations, and in fact it should be mandated that he be told.

The child is innocent and should not suffer any loss of parent. Then again, there are tons of lousy father who want nothing to do with their kids, but that is for another day.

[Black Dog]

I'm in no way supporting that choice. But then a man should really be able to kill their unborn child (or scrap of worthless tissue) by whatever means one does such thing and only get a slap on the wrist assault charge if they so desired following the logic of most of the pro-choicers on this board.

Please explain. Your scenario violates the corrnerstone of most pro-choice arguments: the personal autonomy of the pregnant woman.

I'm sure that a man that killed his unwanted child even if he inflicted no real damage on the woman would draw widespread outrage in this country (as it should)... so there is a bit of a double standard here.

Like I said, it's either alive and protected or a scrap of tissue that can be destroyed without much consequence to whoever destroyed it.

Again: it's about who's making the choice.

I'm not opposed to education, I'm saying our current system is sufficient so now it's just irresponsibility.

A questionable assumption to say the least. But let's continuie:

If the guy is using condoms and the woman is using the pill then your chances of having a double failure of both are in the one in hundreds of thousands. Responsibility can negate nearly all risk.

Yup. If you could guarantee everyone who has sex ever uses multiple form sof birth control, you'd get no argument from me. But you can't. So we must acknowledge that responsible use of contraception is optimal, but not assured. What I want to know why "getting an abortion" does not qualify as taking responsibility for one's actions.

Society does have some unianimously accepted morals. Killing other people is wrong. That's why we have a law against murder.

Given that we do recognize an individual's right to infringe on another's liberty when their own is jeapordized, could abortion not qualify as a form of self-defense? You hint at that below.

That being said, your right, many immoral acts do go without punishment... mostly because they are involved in the private dealings of individuals, a place where I say the state has little right to interfere.

But abortion (assuming life at conception) means that someone has be deprived of their liberty, so really I say it falls into murder category on that basis... again, assuming life at conception which I cannot prove (and you cannot disprove... a big moral conumdrum).

A side question: if abortion is murder, should women who get abortions, doctors who provide them and anyone who facilitates them be charged accordingly? That's always been something that's bugged me about pro-lifers: the declaration of abortion as murder, but a total unwillingness to follow that concept to its logical conclusion.

But I digress...

Someone is losing rights either way philosophically... if we prevent women from having abortions than a woman is losing some rights towards conscience I suppose... definitely towards security of person I think. If we allow it, then the child is losing far more (all of their rights). That's why I say until a consensus is reached or at least a reasonable proof is given, we need to look at this from a utiliarian standpoint and say... "ok, if both sides are right at the same time (they cannot be disproven) then we must accept the solution with the least harm is the most moral."

I think we're on the same page here. To me, since there's no clear cut way to resolve the inherent ethical dilemna presented by abortion, the solution that causes the least harm is the continued acceptance of abortion. The ultimate arbiter of the morality of that choice is the individual making it.

[blueblood]

I think we're on the same page here. To me, since there's no clear cut way to resolve the inherent ethical dilemna presented by abortion, the solution that causes the least harm is the continued acceptance of abortion. The ultimate arbiter of the morality of that choice is the individual making it.

I agree with this statement whole heartedly. It would make sense that those arguing a case like this would see both sides of the argument. I know that the woman has a right to a freedom of conscience and has a right to do whatever she wants. I believe though, that the child should at least get a chance to live. The Robert Latimer case fills my mind during this whole abortion thing. I'm looking out for the little guy.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

There is NO killing of anything going on, most people understand that. In fact 69% do. There is NO life to kill until a breath is taken. Prior to that, it is cell division occurring in a woman's body. Cell division, that has potential to be life once the first breath is taken out side of the host body.

What the hell are you talking about? Just because some don't consider it human yet, it certainly is alive!

People don't get abortions for the hell of it either.

Some do. Some use it like birth control (which I guess it is).

The difference that some don't seem to accept is that this is elective surgery (for elective abortions). There is no medical need for it to be done, and therefore should not be paid for. If someone wants elective surgery, pay for it... don't make the rest of us pay for it.

[geoffrey]

If the guy is using condoms and the woman is using the pill then your chances of having a double failure of both are in the one in hundreds of thousands. Responsibility can negate nearly all risk.

Yup. If you could guarantee everyone who has sex ever uses multiple form sof birth control, you'd get no argument from me. But you can't. So we must acknowledge that responsible use of contraception is optimal, but not assured. What I want to know why "getting an abortion" does not qualify as taking responsibility for one's actions.

Because it can be dealt with in a more efficient way, the pill, condoms, the list goes on.

Society does have some unianimously accepted morals. Killing other people is wrong. That's why we have a law against murder.

Given that we do recognize an individual's right to infringe on another's liberty when their own is jeapordized, could abortion not qualify as a form of self-defense? You hint at that below.

Abortion as a form of self-defense?!?! This I'm going to have to think on some more before I get back to you BD. Very interesting.

A side question: if abortion is murder, should women who get abortions, doctors who provide them and anyone who facilitates them be charged accordingly? That's always been something that's bugged me about pro-lifers: the declaration of abortion as murder, but a total unwillingness to follow that concept to its logical conclusion.

But I digress...

Good call. I'm a bit of a utilitarian in this regard. I think that abortion causes a great amount of harm, but making it illegal would cause greater harm to a greater number of people. Are doctors ethically wrong in performing an abortion, yes. Are they morally wrong? Possibility not if the woman was going to go to some unqualified person to get it done anyways.

Someone is losing rights either way philosophically... if we prevent women from having abortions than a woman is losing some rights towards conscience I suppose... definitely towards security of person I think. If we allow it, then the child is losing far more (all of their rights). That's why I say until a consensus is reached or at least a reasonable proof is given, we need to look at this from a utiliarian standpoint and say... "ok, if both sides are right at the same time (they cannot be disproven) then we must accept the solution with the least harm is the most moral."

I think we're on the same page here. To me, since there's no clear cut way to resolve the inherent ethical dilemna presented by abortion, the solution that causes the least harm is the continued acceptance of abortion. The ultimate arbiter of the morality of that choice is the individual making it.

That's where I'm at as well. I personally can't draw the line so I'm going to say it's immoral until proven otherwise IMO. The established norm is that killing a human is unethical, so I think it's neccessary to prove that a fetus is non-human (or a non-person in R v. W speak). Being said, more people would be harmed by a ban even if a fetus was considered living, so it makes more sense to keep it legal.

[Catchme]

Geoffery, respectfully, and truly inquiringly, could you tell what harm that you perceive abortions cause?

Right from the smallest detail to the most significant to you.

Thank you, in advance.

[jefferiah]

I find it interesting that one point Catch Me uses over and over is that people who have belief in "myths and fairy tales" as she refers to them have no right to trump another's rights. I think we have all done alot to argue this point, by pointing out to her that abortion is legal and is already subsidized in situations where necessity requires it. And I think we have all done so without recourse to quoting myths and fairy tales. I don't see to many examples of quotes from the Bible or the Talmud or Koran, etc, on here.

However The Pro Choice Action Network (funded through the Advisory Council on The Status of Women) has this to say on their website:

"It was Eve, not Adam, who desired knowledge and so picked the fruit from the “tree of knowledge of good and evil". She appreciated the beauty of the tree, saw that its fruit looked delicious, and wanted the wisdom she believed the tree would give her (Genesis 3:6). It was Eve's courage and initiative—her reaching out for beauty, truth, and independence—that gave human beings the powers of knowledge and free will. It was Eve that turned us into rational, moralizing human beings, instead of the obedient and mindlessly happy peons that God created. Ironically, our capacity to disobey was there from the start, but this is only further proof that Eve should not be blamed, but instead admired, because she overcome passivity to exercise her God-given ability."

Not only do these groups resort to myths as they see them, they take old ones and twist em to suit them.

[jefferiah]

You have to stop equating heart surgery with an abortion in a case with no medical concern.

People don't get abortions for the hell of it either.

Nonetheless Black Dog there is no way of determining that is there. Whether any surgery is medically necessary be it heart surgery, abortion, or wart removal a doctor makes this decision. And then it will be funded by the government. There is nothing unfair in saying that it should be the same for abortions as everything else. Some people say there is a slippery slope in Health Care that must allow this, but I think the fact that the need for surgery is determined by a medical practitioner makes a very clear barrier. I think it is reasonable to say that subsidization of all abortions would be just the thing to create a dangerous slippery slope.

[jefferiah]

The scrap of tissue is part of the woman's body. Cutting off your own finger is your choice - cutting off someone else's finger is aggravated assault.

I agree... but something tells me most people would believe that killing of a fetus goes beyond a broken bone.

Well, whatever that something is, telling you that, is wrong. We even have a current poll showing that you would be 69% wrong in fact.

There is NO killing of anything going on, most people understand that. In fact 69% do. There is NO life to kill until a breath is taken. Prior to that, it is cell division occurring in a woman's body. Cell division, that has potential to be life once the first breath is taken out side of the host body.

Plus you said borken bone, riverwind said cut off finger, minimized compare exaggerations for emotional effect does not equal facts and law.

They never seem to poll me, how about you Geoffrey? Anyone else?

[Canadian Blue]

Geoffery, respectfully, and truly inquiringly, could you tell what harm that you perceive abortions cause?

Right from the smallest detail to the most significant to you.

Thank you, in advance.

What harm does the death penalty, eugenics, and euthanasia cause?

Abortion end's all potential human life which was concieved through contraception. The pro-life movement is against abortion, the death penalty, and euthanasia, all of which are considered to be detrimental to human life.

As well according to the poll I posted it seem's that the majority of people would probably favour limiting abortion to the first trimester.

[Catchme]

Geoffery, respectfully, and truly inquiringly, could you tell what harm that you perceive abortions cause?Right from the smallest detail to the most significant to you.Thank you, in advance.

Abortion end's all potential human life which was concieved through contraception. The pro-life movement is against abortion, the death penalty, and euthanasia, all of which are considered to be detrimental to human life.

As well according to the poll I posted it seem's that the majority of people would probably favour limiting abortion to the first trimester.

Your 1st sentence there does not make sense, it was conceived through contraception?????

Then YOU say the pro life movement is against abortion, the death penalty and euthanasia, because they are considered to be detrimental to human life.

First, abortion has nothing to do with being detrimental to life, as there is NO life, there is only the potential to be.

Second, I know plenty of so called pro-lifers who are absolutely FOR the death penalty. That is an erroneous statement.

Third, in you last point you have pre-contradicted yourself and your position, with your previous commentary.

You say that according to the poll, it seems to you, the majority of of people would probably favour limiting abortion to 3 months. That is NOT possible. You stated yourself, right before that, the pro-life are against ALL abortions.

Not only that the medical determinents for access to abortion, are already at 3 months you keep overlooking this for some reason. As pro-lifers, by your own admission, are against them at any level, this means they are against the 3 month limit to access too. Which they are!

From this you can, or should be able to, see the anti-choice/pro-lifers cannot be combined with the 23 % who are in favour of current access to abortions. It just isn't possible.

Then you have the 10% who want access expanded to 6 months, most certainly the pro-life 31% are not in support of that either.

Then finally you have the 30% who want abortion access expanded to first breath taken and pro lifers are even more not in support of that either.

So just exactly what poll demograhic could/did you combine together to support your premise?

The pro-lifers are narrow mindly anti-Choice all the way through. They cannot be combined with any other numbers polled, as all other numbers in the poll are firmly pro-choice. Your premise and conclusion of the majority wishing to limit to access to remain the same, are in error.

40% want access expanded either to 6 months or first breath

23% want acces to stay the same at first trimester

6% think it is none of there business

31% want to deny others their Rights completly.

There is NO mushy middle here, it is pointless trying to create one. The fact is: 69% of Canadians fully support women's rights to: self determine, have freedom of conscience, have freedom of acces to universal health care and freedom to privacy.

Also, I noticed you did not address what harm abortions do? Apparently, there is NO identifable harm to society that they do.

Though I will await the person's, who I asked it of, response.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

First, abortion has nothing to do with being detrimental to life, as there is NO life, there is only the potential to be.

How is it not living? Isn't it growing? Cells multiplying? Consuming energy?

[geoffrey]

Geoffery, respectfully, and truly inquiringly, could you tell what harm that you perceive abortions cause?

I feel like I'm about to get trapped by that question, but I'll answer it anyhow.

The harm in respect to the absolute denial of liberty to the unborn child. Like I said, my example assumes that both outlooks are correct (since niether is disprovable, life at conception or life at birth) and then the utilitiarian argument would play out between them, showing that pro-choice is the lesser of two evils.

Hence why I'm grudingly pro-choice, not that I think abortion is less than homocide, but because banning it would create even more death, injury and issues.

I think the child is alive at conception only because I can't prove otherwise, I think 'beyond all doubt' is a reasonable standard to hold when your dealing with life (or not).

Now I expect a whole bunch of rhetoric on how the law supports abortion so the case is closed... but I think that's irrelevant. I accept the law's position and I think it provides an optimal, though morally bankrupt, outcome.

But anyways, I think that an absolute pro-life outlook is dangerous and far more immoral as the babies end up dead, the mothers end up dead, diseased or seriously injured and society pays a far greater cost. Banning abortion won't reduce abortions IMO. So there is no point in just driving a potentially dangerous activity underground.

[Catchme]

Geoffery, respectfully, and truly inquiringly, could you tell what harm that you perceive abortions cause?

I feel like I'm about to get trapped by that question, but I'll answer it anyhow.

The harm in respect to the absolute denial of liberty to the unborn child. Like I said, my example assumes that both outlooks are correct (since niether is disprovable, life at conception or life at birth) and then the utilitiarian argument would play out between them, showing that pro-choice is the lesser of two evils.

Hence why I'm grudingly pro-choice, not that I think abortion is less than homocide, but because banning it would create even more death, injury and issues.

I think the child is alive at conception only because I can't prove otherwise, I think 'beyond all doubt' is a reasonable standard to hold when your dealing with life (or not).

Now I expect a whole bunch of rhetoric on how the law supports abortion so the case is closed... but I think that's irrelevant. I accept the law's position and I think it provides an optimal, though morally bankrupt, outcome.

But anyways, I think that an absolute pro-life outlook is dangerous and far more immoral as the babies end up dead, the mothers end up dead, diseased or seriously injured and society pays a far greater cost. Banning abortion won't reduce abortions IMO. So there is no point in just driving a potentially dangerous activity underground.

Thank you geoffery, and I was not trying to trap you at all, I really wanted to know what "harm" you think you see. I would be prepared to discuss and think about any rational facts about harm. You laid out your thought processes very clearly and I thank you again. It is nice to see that you are opened minded enough to see that Rights cannot be trumped by religious belief. And that is an acceptable position.

But truthfully you have NOT listed any harm to society that abortions do that you stated they did previously.

And, I must state yet again, that a unborn fetus has NO liberty as it is NOT alive by medical and legal definition that is based upon proof. So is saying that you have no proof, perhaps only because you have not looked for proof, or because you are not willing to accept the proof?

At any rate, thank you again, for your honesty and your ability to see Rights, are for those who are actually living and as being primary.

[geoffrey]

But truthfully you have NOT listed any harm to society that abortions do that you stated they did previously.

No I didn't, and for good reason. I don't think you can harm society... you can only harm those in it. The harm here is focused on the unborn child, if it is in fact alive. Until I am convinced for sure that it's a non-person, then I will assert that there is a harm involved.

And, I must state yet again, that a unborn fetus has NO liberty as it is NOT alive by medical and legal definition that is based upon proof. So is saying that you have no proof, perhaps only because you have not looked for proof, or because you are not willing to accept the proof?

No, I disagree with your 'proof' or 'facts.' It's true that a baby doesn't breath until it's out of the womb, but that's an awfully arbitary line. You could draw the line at first heart beat, first brain activity, first unique DNA (conception) or when it has a social conscience (age 2ish)... all with some evidence of fact. I need some more convincing facts if we are to draw an arbitary line in the sand and say on this side your not a person, and the other you have full rights.

But no matter how you draw that line, it's less harm to less people if abortion is permitted. That, is a fact.

At any rate, thank you again, for your honesty and your ability to see Rights, are for those who are actually living and as being primary.

Absolutely, if I could be convinced that a fetus is absolutely not a person, I'd have no problem supporting abortion. Even Black Dog, a very left wing pro-choicer had the same difficulty as I did, and many others, in determining that rational line in the sand where someone gains legal rights.

I'd never tell a friend to actively seek an abortion as I still personally feel it's a very harmful act (I'd probably just decline comment if asked an opinion or for advice on the matter). But until I can prove to folks like you that a unborn child is has it's own self-interest, I have no right to tell you not to get an abortion.

And like I said, unfortunately overall it's better for the big picture for abortion to be legal.

[Canadian Blue]

You say that according to the poll, it seems to you, the majority of of people would probably favour limiting abortion to 3 months. That is NOT possible. You stated yourself, right before that, the pro-life are against ALL abortions.

Yes, however if we were given a vote to restrict abortion to three month's, don't you think the people against all abortion's would vote in favour with the ones who are only against abortion after three month's.

Second, I know plenty of so called pro-lifers who are absolutely FOR the death penalty. That is an erroneous statement.

Third, in you last point you have pre-contradicted yourself and your position, with your previous commentary.

According to pro-life websites they are also against the death penalty.

It's not a contradiction as every individual has individual beliefs.

The pro-lifers are narrow mindly anti-Choice all the way through. They cannot be combined with any other numbers polled, as all other numbers in the poll are firmly pro-choice. Your premise and conclusion of the majority wishing to limit to access to remain the same, are in error.

Canada has the most liberal abortion laws in the world. It's not an error, since if we were to hold a vote today on limiting abortion to the first trimester, a majority would vote in favour.

There is NO mushy middle here, it is pointless trying to create one. The fact is: 69% of Canadians fully support women's rights to: self determine, have freedom of conscience, have freedom of acces to universal health care and freedom to privacy.

I always figure that black and white is for simple minds, obviously you take the cake. According to democrats for life, and many countries in the western world, their can be a mushy middle.

Also, I noticed you did not address what harm abortions do? Apparently, there is NO identifable harm to society that they do.

I guess it's good because it kill's off any possible undesirables in society, so it's a form of Eugenics. That argument is a fallable one, because it can also be argued that euthanasia, eugenics, the death penalty, etc. all do no harm to society. Abortion is a much too complicated issue, and nobody here has bought into you're black and white mindset to every single issue. Abortion is a question of moral's, and what extent the government should do in order to protect human life. An issue can be made as to how far we go with respect to reproductive right's and reproductive technology as well, but that's another argument for another day.

QUOTE

Over the course of the history of abortion, induced abortion has been the source of considerable debate, controversy, and activism. An individual's position on the complex ethical, moral, philosophical, biological, and legal issues is often related to his or her value system. Opinions of abortion may be best described as being a combination of beliefs on its morality, and beliefs on the responsibility, ethical scope, and proper extent of governmental authorities in public policy. Religious ethics also has an influence upon both personal opinion and the greater debate over abortion (see religion and abortion).

QUOTE

In North America, a December 2001 poll surveyed Canadian opinion on abortion, asking Canadians in what circumstances they believe abortion should be permitted; 32% responded that they believe abortion should be legal in all circumstances, 52% that it should be legal in certain circumstances, and 14% that it should be legal in no circumstances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AbortionLawsMap.png

So apparently quite a few western countries disagree so they must all be about degrading the right's of other's. Especially Ireland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/95-10_Initiative

Apparently 52% of Canadian's believe that abortion should only be legal in certain circumstances, which isn't much different from the previous poll. Don't try to skewer the result's and say 80% or more are pro-choice, I think a majority would rather find the "mushy middle".

Geoffrey I don't think their is any point in trying to reason with a person who is as close minded as catchme is.

[Catchme]

'Canadian Blue' said:...if we were given a vote to restrict abortion to three month's, don't you think the people against all abortion's would vote in favour with the ones who are only against abortion after three month's

NO, because abortion access is ALREADY 3 months. Again slowly, IT ALREADY IS 3 MONTHS. And as I have said repeatedly, seeing as it is already 3 months, anti-choicers, would not agree they ALREADY DO NOT agree.

CB said: It's not a contradiction as every individual has individual beliefs.

No, it is a contradiction, you stated anti-choice would join with pro-choice in order to change abortion access to 3 months, right after saying that anti-choicers DO NOT agree with any abortion access at all.

CB said: Canada has the most liberal abortion laws in the world. It's not an error, since if we were to hold a vote today on limiting abortion to the first trimester, a majority would vote in favour.

NO, actually it doesn't have the most liberal abortions laws in the world at all. Another erroneous statement. For example, the USA allows abortion access past the first 3 months, the Canada medical community does not. And No the majority would NOT be in favour of limiting it to the first 3 months.

CB said: I always figure that black and white is for simple minds, obviously you take the cake. According to democrats for life, and many countries in the western world, their can be a mushy middle.

Respectfully, you have insisted a majority would limit it to 3 months when it has been pointed out, over and over, it is already at 3 months. There is no mushy middle in Canada, it matters not what the rest of the world says.By your own polls prove this. 69% of Canadians are firmly Pro-choice, and 17% believe in abortion access for certain reasons, while 14% say no absolutely no abortions for no reason.

CB said: I guess it's good because it kill's off any possible undesirables in society. .. Abortion is a question of moral's, and what extent the government should do in order to protect human life. ..

Never asked about good, I asked about harm. And personally that you think eugenics is ok, surprises me. I certainly don't. So what are saying is abortion does NO harm to society. You can't mix up the other things you mentioned with freedom of Choice, separate subjects completely.

Abortion is NOT a question of morals. Nor a question to what extent a government should do to protect human life. Again there is no legal and medical life present to protect at 3 months.

CB said: Apparently 52% of Canadian's believe that abortion should only be legal in certain circumstances, which isn't much different from the previous poll. Don't try to skewer the result's and say 80% or more are pro-choice, I think a majority would rather find the "mushy middle".

I see you edited your post and added this above, so I have edited mine to reflect your addition, which is a poll you also posted elsewhere that I showed was erroneous. Again what said is incorrect, your own poll that was just weeks ago, that you have abondoned now in favour of a 6 year old poll depicts how incorrect. This latest poll old poll you produced, as you thought it supported your position, I presume though it doesn't, was surrounded by other polls that asked clearer more direct questions and they have completely different results than the one you are trying to sell. Why did you not post them?

I will rectify that oversight of yours below:

In a Léger poll taken September 2001, 46.6% of respondents say they are personally "for" abortion, while 37.6% say they are personally "against" abortion. In the same poll, 54.5% of respondents agreed with the idea that "only women should have the right to decide to have an abortion," while 38.5% disagreed.

In a Léger poll taken January 2002, 47% of respondents said abortion was "not immoral," while 41.8% said it was.

In a poll conducted by the National Post in November 2002, 78% of respondents answered "yes" to the question: "Should women have complete freedom on their decision to have an abortion?".

In a Gallup Canada poll taken September 2004, 54% of respondents said they personally thought abortion was "morally acceptable

In a Gallup Canada poll taken April 2005, 52% of respondents say they would like to see Canadian abortion laws "remain the same," 20% say they would like the laws to be "less strict," while 24% say they would like the laws to be "more strict."

In an October 2005 Environics poll, commissioned by Life Canada, when asked "at what point in human development should the law protect human life," 30% of respondents said "From conception on," 19% said "After three months of pregancy," 11% said "After six months of pregancy," and 33% said "From the point of birth."

In an April 2006 Leger poll, 34% of respondents said they found abortion "immoral."[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_C...a#Opinion_polls

That is the correct link to the polls, canadian blues other links to wikipedia for some reason do not take you to where the polls actually are.

As you can see, from the sheer number of polls, that you failled to produce, though you must have seen them, show that your premise is incorrect, as the polls show Canadians ARE pro-choice in a very high majority. There is NO mushy middle.

Geoffry I don't think their is any point in trying to reason with a person who is as close minded as catchme is.

There is nothing closed minded about stating beliefs DO NOT have a right to trump Human Rights. Plus, the state of open minded or closed minded is not what we are discussing, it is Human rights we are discussing. Please in the future restrict your commentary to the topic not me, thank you.

[Black Dog]

Because it can be dealt with in a more efficient way, the pill, condoms, the list goes on.

Why view abortion as any different? To a hardcore Catholic, for example, they are all pretty much the same.

Nonetheless Black Dog there is no way of determining that is there. Whether any surgery is medically necessary be it heart surgery, abortion, or wart removal a doctor makes this decision. And then it will be funded by the government. There is nothing unfair in saying that it should be the same for abortions as everything else. Some people say there is a slippery slope in Health Care that must allow this, but I think the fact that the need for surgery is determined by a medical practitioner makes a very clear barrier. I think it is reasonable to say that subsidization of all abortions would be just the thing to create a dangerous slippery slope

Very few abortions are "medically neccesary" in the sense of the pregnancy posing a threat to the life or health of the woman. My question above was: areteh costs of funding abortions greater than or less than the cost of the inevitable increase in unwanted pregnancies carried to term?

As well according to the poll I posted it seem's that the majority of people would probably favour limiting abortion to the first trimester.

I wonder if these same people know that the vast majority of abortions already occur in the first trimester.

But then, these same people are engaging in the arbitrary line drawing as those who say a fetus is not a person until it leaves the womb.