A victory for liberty

[Guest Warwick Green]

I agree that there should be a compromise, but why should it be about somebody's body (pun not indetended)? Should we also discuss and compromise on the shape of their nose? Size of their belly?

As somebody who is pro-abortion I don't really care if the anti-aborters are prepared to compromise at all. I was just extending an olive branch.

[scribblet]

I believe the majority of canucks are pro-choice with limits, this is confirmed here.

I support freedom of choice but have reservations about late term abortions, personally I would restrict abortions in the last 4 months for health of the mother issues.

New Poll: Two Thirds of Canadians Want Abortion Restrictions

Results Have Remained Consistent over Five Years of Polling

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06110908.html

OTTAWA, November 9, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The fifth annual poll on Canadians' opinions on abortion has found that almost two-thirds of the 2,021 people surveyed by Environics Research Group support laws to protect human life before birth.

Only three in ten support the current Canadian policy in which there is no legal protection for human beings at any stage of development before birth.

The poll was commissioned by LifeCanada, the national educational pro-life group, and includes questions on parental consent for abortion, informed consent and views on tax-funding of abortion.

....

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006_docs/Life...aEnvironics20...

[Riverwind]

I support freedom of choice but have reservations about late term abortions, personally I would restrict abortions in the last 4 months for health of the mother issues.

The blame for the lack of compromise rests with the anti-abortionists. They have made it clear that any compromise would be a 'first-step' towards a total ban and it would not end the debate or the fight. People that support abortion realize it is easier to defend the status quo with no law than to stop a compromise from be gradually taken away. That is why BD said a compromise on 20 weeks would have to include a constitutional amendment that would forever prohibit anti-abortionists from pushing for further restrictions.

[kimmy]

A resolution will never come about to the abortion issue until people of goodwill sit down and come up with a compromise - but I don't expect that any time soon.

To play devil's advocate, and not take sides (because this is an issue that I have a great deal of personal difficulty with...)

If someone believes that life begins at conception, then what room is there for compromise?

-k

[Black Dog]

If someone believes that life begins at conception, then what room is there for compromise?

Nominal prolifers compromise all the time. many would favour abortion in cases where the mother's health or life were at risk. And I doubt many would support bringing criminal charges against women who have abortions, were they made illegal. Being pro-life, in practice at least, still leaves one with lots of wiggle-room.

[JerrySeinfeld]

If someone believes that life begins at conception, then what room is there for compromise?

Nominal prolifers compromise all the time. many would favour abortion in cases where the mother's health or life were at risk. And I doubt many would support bringing criminal charges against women who have abortions, were they made illegal. Being pro-life, in practice at least, still leaves one with lots of wiggle-room.

As well there is room for movement in the pro-choice camp. As militant as one might be about the concept of a women controlling her "own" body (at the expense of the fetus's body), I don't think there is anyone out there who wouldn't want to REDUCE the overall number of abortions. It's not a pleasant "I'm proud to be a woman" experience.

If there is policy or guidelines which increase women's accountability or educate women about other options, I can't see how that in any way curtails someone's freedom.

[kimmy]

If someone believes that life begins at conception, then what room is there for compromise?

Nominal prolifers compromise all the time. many would favour abortion in cases where the mother's health or life were at risk. And I doubt many would support bringing criminal charges against women who have abortions, were they made illegal. Being pro-life, in practice at least, still leaves one with lots of wiggle-room.

In matters concerning how the law treats people, for sure. Or for medically necessary abortions.

But if one believes life begins at conception, that renders any discussion of late term or 20 weeks or 13 weeks rather irrelevant, doesn't it?

It would also, it seems to me, render any discussion of exceptions for victims of rape or incest irrelevant as well. It strikes me as somewhat contradictory for pro-lifers to on one hand claim that the fetus is a person while on the other hand allow exceptions for victims of rape or incest. And yet many pro-life folks seem to take that position. Why? It seems contradictory. Perhaps this is the handiest way of separating the "fetus is a person" people from the "well, she should have been more careful" people.

It seems to me that if someone sincerely believes a fetus is a person, then they're "all in" (to borrow an annoying poker metaphor.) It seems to me that if somebody is pro-life, but supports exceptions for rape or incest, then they're actually part of the "she should have been more careful" crowd.

-k

[Black Dog]

In matters concerning how the law treats people, for sure. Or for medically necessary abortions.

But if one believes life begins at conception, that renders any discussion of late term or 20 weeks or 13 weeks rather irrelevant, doesn't it?

All I'm saying is that if one adopts an absolutist position on when life begins, then all those other things flow from there.

If one believes life begins at conception, then that, to me, means no abortions for anyone ever. Period. Full stop. Furthermore, if life begins at conception, then abortion is murder and thus anyone obtaining or carrying out aborition shoudl be subject to criminal sanction.

I see from the rest of your post that we are in almost total agreement. yay.

[Figleaf]

Some people consider the right to life more important then reproductive rights, because, well its life.

I've never understood that formulation. Most people eat (formerly) living animals all the time. Even vegans eat vegetable life. If this is about the right to 'life', howcome there's so much animal and plant killing going on?

I think a human and an animal are two completely different things. Same with vegetation, its not the same as a fetus. Human life is a completely different issue then a tree getting cut down figleaf.

Ohhhh! You mean human life! Okay, now I get ... no, I still don't get it. Why do you place special value on human vs. other types of life then?

[Figleaf]

If someone believes that life begins at conception, then what room is there for compromise?

Nominal prolifers compromise all the time. many would favour abortion in cases where the mother's health or life were at risk. And I doubt many would support bringing criminal charges against women who have abortions, were they made illegal. Being pro-life, in practice at least, still leaves one with lots of wiggle-room.

As well there is room for movement in the pro-choice camp. As militant as one might be about the concept of a women controlling her "own" body (at the expense of the fetus's body), I don't think there is anyone out there who wouldn't want to REDUCE the overall number of abortions. It's not a pleasant "I'm proud to be a woman" experience.

If there is policy or guidelines which increase women's accountability or educate women about other options, I can't see how that in any way curtails someone's freedom.

But would it be in the interests of society? Personally, I think we should have abortion set as the default option, and women wishing to bring their pregnancies to term should have to commit to healthy lifestyle during the pregnancy and prove that the prospective child will be appropriately cared for during it's minority.

[Guest Warwick Green]

OTTAWA, November 9, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The fifth annual poll on Canadians' opinions on abortion has found that almost two-thirds of the 2,021 people surveyed by Environics Research Group support laws to protect human life before birth.

When "before birth"? From conception, after 10 weeks, 20 weeks, etc? LifeSiteNews is not one's most objective source for abortion information.

[Guest Warwick Green]

A resolution will never come about to the abortion issue until people of goodwill sit down and come up with a compromise - but I don't expect that any time soon.

To play devil's advocate, and not take sides (because this is an issue that I have a great deal of personal difficulty with...)

If someone believes that life begins at conception, then what room is there for compromise?

If they are not prepared to compromise they had better learn to live with the situation we have right now. Anti-aborters have turned abortion into a political issue and they had better learn to play by political rules.

[DarkAngel_]

fight! fight! fight!

the young suffer thats no doubt, and babies even more i guess, the mother and fater does as well, but it is all to procreate, it is to 'be.' but if you are not idependant and quite, i guess, stupid, and you realize you are not ready and nether is your family, then i guess it would be ok, but with restriction, the making of life is beautiful? no, the love for those making life is beautiful, other words it's filthy, i don't even know how anyone could love sex so much as to never love, i would die for and by love! so if i loved the life i was making i would be against it, but for right now i beleive birth is not a sickness, so should not be cured. children should be born and abortion allowed in the first stages of pregnacy, no later.

now to contimplate ever having a child............