Abortion in Canada

[obfuscator]

So just to give you some background.

 

Abortion has been legal in Canada since 1969. It has been completely unregulated since 1988. The Canadian population has always been heavily split over the issue; while a large segment of the population is pro-choice there are also a large amount of pro-life citizens, who hold demonstrations every year.

 

The current prime minister, Steven Harper, could be classified as a moderate conservative - in general his government has strayed far from dangerous social issues (abortion and gay marriage being the two main ones). However, during recent discussions over funding for maternal health projects to be planned and started during the G8 summit, he made the decision to focus on maternal health without offering support for abortion. This position has been heavily criticized by many of the other g8 countries.

 

On one side of the spectrum, abortion is currently legal in Canada - so the pro-choice feel that it makes sense to offer it as part of the maternal health option.

On the other side of the spectrum, the pro-life feel that since this issue is so divisive, it makes sense to not spend tax dollars suplementing a plan that a large number of Canadians are opposed to.

 

When this idea was originally brought up, pro-choice groups were obviously miffed. They began protesting, etc. They were advised by a conservative senator to "Shut the [bleep] up about the abortion issue". Those were her exact words. Her meaning was that the more they brought it up, the more likely it would be to become an election issue. Of course the liberal media picked up on this and immediately called it suppression of free speech etc.

 

The reason I post this is because it seems like it will indeed become an election issue - see this article: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/809829--abortion-vote-inevitable-mp-says?bn=1

 

There are several articles out there from various news sources, I just don't feel like linking them all.

 

So, what do you think? Obviously I'm pro-life, I think you would mostly know that by now :P so I'm quite glad to see this coming up as an election issue as I beleive there is a large enough objection to it to at least merit some reasonable discussion.

[Iamdan]

I'm pro-life. Honestly, why not just give birth to the kid and put it up for adoption? It's soulless and twisted but any life is better than no life at all.

 

Orphanages and foster homes are overcrowded as it is. Rather than putting more kids in them, we need more pro lifers to adopt instead of conceiving their own child.

[Intriguing]

I'm pro-life. Honestly, why not just give birth to the kid and put it up for adoption? It's soulless and twisted but any life is better than no life at all.

If adoption was as easy and successful as you probably think it is, that would be a fantastic solution. Unfortunately it's not.

[OldJoe]

Think this was up a couple of weeks ago, about abortion.

Abortion should always be legal, it's the women who in the end has to go thru with it. However, i don't think abortion should be used as a birth control.

[OldJoe]

I'm pro-life. Honestly, why not just give birth to the kid and put it up for adoption? It's soulless and twisted but any life is better than no life at all.

 

Orphanages and foster homes are overcrowded as it is. Rather than putting more kids in them, we need more pro lifers to adopt instead of conceiving their own child.

I would rather live in an overcrowded foster home than never live.

Bit difficult to decide whether you live or not lol.

 

I don't think you'd be very happy in a Russian or Ukrainian orphanage compared to a Australian or French one. The country where you end up is very important too.

[Lenin64]

A life is always better than no life in my opinion.

But how would you know? It isn't as if there's some sort of stock of, say, souls or something, just sitting around thinking "Yea, I'm gonna live!". It's just something that wouldn't happen, nobody (including it) would ever know that it never happened.

[nickeley102]

A life is always better than no life in my opinion.

But how would you know? It isn't as if there's some sort of stock of, say, souls or something, just sitting around thinking "Yea, I'm gonna live!". It's just something that wouldn't happen, nobody (including it) would ever know that it never happened.

I'm with lenin

 

When its a zygote and barely more than a small collection of cells in a swamp like environment is it "life"? Human life is given meaning through interrelations

[Riku3220]

A life is always better than no life in my opinion.

But how would you know? It isn't as if there's some sort of stock of, say, souls or something, just sitting around thinking "Yea, I'm gonna live!". It's just something that wouldn't happen, nobody (including it) would ever know that it never happened.

I believe in some sort of soul theory. Kind of like the Law of Conservation of Mass but with souls. I think there's a set number of souls in the world and when you die, the soul travels to the next "vessel" (newborn) which can be a human, dog, fish, lion, whatever is being born. the soul contains your personality and general intelligence such as memorization skills. With this sort of belief, I can justify abortion with, "It's only destroying the vessel, the soul will find another one."

[Iamdan]

I'm pro-life. Honestly, why not just give birth to the kid and put it up for adoption? It's soulless and twisted but any life is better than no life at all.

 

Orphanages and foster homes are overcrowded as it is. Rather than putting more kids in them, we need more pro lifers to adopt instead of conceiving their own child.

I would rather live in an overcrowded foster home than never live.

 

How could you rather anything as an aborted fetus? Of course now you'd rather live than die, because you have emotional investment in life and an instinct to live. A fetus does not.

 

If life is so sacred, why do you own a computer? Why not donate all that money you spent and save lives in 3rd world companies? I'm sure you buy stuff you don't need all the time. Life is sacred all right, just not as sacred as your crappuchino and muffin.

 

Pro lifers say abortion is murder is always bad and abortion is murder. A nice blanket statement for people who prefer to think more simply. Consumer culture is murder. From the child laborers in sweatshops stocking shops, to drug lords processing the cocaine for the politicians put there by corporations who make money off the people, suffering and murder is unavoidable. Everyone is involved, whether they try to convince themselves they aren't or not.

 

You can't divide good and bad as black and white universal truths. It's not that simple.

[meol]

I just hate that attitude. By that way of thinking, there's no reason to do anything good at all, since you aren't dedicating your whole life to it and just everyone is a hypocrite. How about we face issues one at a time? Even if suffering and murder were really inevitable, that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to lessen them, even if just by small amounts.

 

I would say I'm a pro-lifer. I really dislike the prospects of abortion -establishing the difference between murder and abortion at the moment of birth seems quite arbitrary. Then again, making it illegal won't solve the problem, and might only make the abortions that would clandestinely happen anyway more dangerous, so I see it as a necessary evil. Couples/mothers should have access to safe and healthy abortions, but they [the abortions, not thepeople] should really be discouraged by other means as much as possible, especially as a means of birth control.

[Romy]

I'm pro-choice.

 

 

 

 

 

I also hold a not-very-popular opinion about life. It's not as holy and critical as most like to think. There's a famous quote of ... I don't remember who and neither remember the exact wording, but they said they've been dead for billions and billions of years, and have been comfortable with it, so they aren't afraid of death.

I just think having a terrible life is worse than not having lived at all. And I also think having a child you do not wish to have / having a child you don't think you could support / having a child that could not handle the reality it's sent into = not a good idea.

 

The 2 thoughts combined equal being very pro-choice about it all. Not to mention the basic freedom we're taking away from women by not allowing them to have abortions.

[Iamdan]

Because it's so difficult to skimp out on luxuries? There's plenty of reason to do good if you want. I never said to not make an effort for something you believe, my point was it's not black and white, and actions do more than words.

 

People seem to love jumping on the pro life bandwagon because it's easy. It's easy to feel all morally superior because they are 'against murder.' Being pro life does not lessen any suffering. Even if abortion was illegal it would only cause more problems, and cause more suffering for those already in foster care.

 

It's something different to actually do something about these beliefs. It's not so convenient to go out of your way to buy clothing not made in sweatshops. It's a pain to save some lives by donating the money you want to spend at the movies.

 

Supporting people cramming more children into foster care doesn't work if you won't adopt one. This 'let someone else handle it' idea can't sustain itself.

[magekillr]

I love Canada's approach to abortion :)

 

Every country should follow: no government regulations or interference, whatsoever.

[Romy]

I love Canada's approach to abortion :)

 

Every country should follow: no government regulations or interference, whatsoever.

 

Amen.

 

 

 

The world should learn from Canada :P.

[obfuscator]

I love Canada's approach to abortion :)

 

Every country should follow: no government regulations or interference, whatsoever.

Why should something be completely unregulated? From what I understand of current Canadian laws, a cocaine addict with a coat hanger can perform an abortion in a sewage plant it and it would completely legal. How is this fair?

 

 

The adoption question is a tricky one - I do as well believe that regardless of how "bad" foster homes may be, it is true that the adoptive process is needlessly overcomplicated and hard to participate in.

[magekillr]

Why should something be completely unregulated?

 

Well normally you wouldn't need to ask me this because I like things regulated. However, this doesn't need to be, nor should it be. It is a decision for the doctor and the woman to make (assuming the woman is in good mental-health). If a doctor feels comfortable performing one at 8 months and the woman, for whatever reason, wants it, then that's her choice.

 

a.) The mental health of the mother would be in question of the highest order if she wanted to abort at that late in the game if her health wasn't in danger, and neither was the fetus's. I put that qualifier there for a reason.

 

b.) Some people say "only if the health of the mother is at risk!" According to these people, a woman should be forced to give birth to dead fetuses and fetuses with severe birth defects. That's wrong

 

The exception in America is ONLY a threat to a woman's life in the third trimester. So if a dead fetus is more of an inconvenience (rather emotionally painful at that) than a direct threat, you are forced to give birth. In fact, this is THE biggest problem with the ban on IDX.

 

So it comes down to this: a woman should be able to have an abortion in the first and second trimester for whatever reason that she wants. Ideally you could put a restriction on the third trimester for "only if the health of the fetus or mother is in danger," but there's no reason for that because of the reasons I laid out above.

 

I see restrictions creep with chauvinists wanting to take away a woman's freedom, and I stand by my convictions that I do not trust the right-wing to settle for "late term only if..." They will continue to march, taking every last inch of that rope. Don't believe me? Look in America with states like Oklahoma, forcing women to get an ultrasound and have the doctor describe the fetus in great detail before she has the abortion.

 

Canada has no restriction on their abortion rights, none whatsoever. They're doing fine.

 

From what I understand of current Canadian laws, a cocaine addict with a coat hanger can perform an abortion in a sewage plant it and it would completely legal. How is this fair?

 

No woman would ever do that when it's perfectly legal to have it done professionally and medical expenses are covered by the government. This is why banning abortion doesn't work in the first place; what you said above will happen all of the time.

[tortilliachp]

pro-life and pro-choice are terms of rhetoric used by political spin-doctors to galvanize an emotive response in people.

 

choice and life are marginal issues of abortion, abortion is about abortion and morality. Now that may sound silly to some, but using the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" all you do is polirize the issue.

 

the reality of the matter is that not all abortion is wrong, or all abortion is right. I'm sure ALL of us can agree on that. saying you're pro-choice or pro-life therefore tells us absolutely nothing about where you stand on the moral issue, simply in which direction you wish to manipulate the debate emotively rather than ethically.

 

 

The adoption question is a tricky one - I do as well believe that regardless of how "bad" foster homes may be, it is true that the adoptive process is needlessly overcomplicated and hard to participate in.

 

or simply that there are too many unwanted children. everyone wants "their own" child. that's genetically natural, that's the way you pass you your own genes.

[obfuscator]

Why should something be completely unregulated?

 

Well normally you wouldn't need to ask me this because I like things regulated. However, this doesn't need to be, nor should it be. It is a decision for the doctor and the woman to make (assuming the woman is in good mental-health). If a doctor feels comfortable performing one at 8 months and the woman, for whatever reason, wants it, then that's her choice.

 

a.) The mental health of the mother would be in question of the highest order if she wanted to abort at that late in the game if her health wasn't in danger, and neither was the fetus's. I put that qualifier there for a reason.

 

b.) Some people say "only if the health of the mother is at risk!" According to these people, a woman should be forced to give birth to dead fetuses and fetuses with severe birth defects. That's wrong

 

Why is that wrong?

The exception in America is ONLY a threat to a woman's life in the third trimester. So if a dead fetus is more of an inconvenience (rather emotionally painful at that) than a direct threat, you are forced to give birth. In fact, this is THE biggest problem with the ban on IDX.

 

I don't understand what you're saying here?

So it comes down to this: a woman should be able to have an abortion in the first and second trimester for whatever reason that she wants. Ideally you could put a restriction on the third trimester for "only if the health of the fetus or mother is in danger," but there's no reason for that because of the reasons I laid out above.

 

I see restrictions creep with chauvinists wanting to take away a woman's freedom, and I stand by my convictions that I do not trust the right-wing to settle for "late term only if..." They will continue to march, taking every last inch of that rope. Don't believe me? Look in America with states like Oklahoma, forcing women to get an ultrasound and have the doctor describe the fetus in great detail before she has the abortion.

 

I don't see why, regardless of reason, a woman should have a right to murder another person.

 

And yes, pro-lifers (such as myself) will continue to protest until all abortion is illegal, except in cases where the life of the mother is threatened.

 

Canada has no restriction on their abortion rights, none whatsoever. They're doing fine.

 

From what I understand of current Canadian laws, a cocaine addict with a coat hanger can perform an abortion in a sewage plant it and it would completely legal. How is this fair?

 

No woman would ever do that when it's perfectly legal to have it done professionally and medical expenses are covered by the government. This is why banning abortion doesn't work in the first place; what you said above will happen all of the time.

 

Not all of us feel like Canada is doing fine. I personally don't like the fact that my tax dollars are being used to murder innocent children.

[Riku3220]

So it comes down to this: a woman should be able to have an abortion in the first and second trimester for whatever reason that she wants. Ideally you could put a restriction on the third trimester for "only if the health of the fetus or mother is in danger," but there's no reason for that because of the reasons I laid out above.

 

I see restrictions creep with chauvinists wanting to take away a woman's freedom, and I stand by my convictions that I do not trust the right-wing to settle for "late term only if..." They will continue to march, taking every last inch of that rope. Don't believe me? Look in America with states like Oklahoma, forcing women to get an ultrasound and have the doctor describe the fetus in great detail before she has the abortion.

 

I don't see why, regardless of reason, a woman should have a right to murder another person.

 

And yes, pro-lifers (such as myself) will continue to protest until all abortion is illegal, except in cases where the life of the mother is threatened.

It's not a person, it's a fetus. A shell of what will become a person. It's just preventing a life from happening not ending one. If you want to illegalize preventing life then why should masturbation, condoms, and birth control be legal?

[Romy]

So it comes down to this: a woman should be able to have an abortion in the first and second trimester for whatever reason that she wants. Ideally you could put a restriction on the third trimester for "only if the health of the fetus or mother is in danger," but there's no reason for that because of the reasons I laid out above.

 

I see restrictions creep with chauvinists wanting to take away a woman's freedom, and I stand by my convictions that I do not trust the right-wing to settle for "late term only if..." They will continue to march, taking every last inch of that rope. Don't believe me? Look in America with states like Oklahoma, forcing women to get an ultrasound and have the doctor describe the fetus in great detail before she has the abortion.

 

I don't see why, regardless of reason, a woman should have a right to murder another person.

 

And yes, pro-lifers (such as myself) will continue to protest until all abortion is illegal, except in cases where the life of the mother is threatened.

It's not a person, it's a fetus. A shell of what will become a person. It's just preventing a life from happening not ending one. If you want to illegalize preventing life then why should masturbation, condoms, and birth control be legal?

 

I definitely agree with you, but the whole is-abortion-murder debate is as old as the concept of abortions itself.

 

I don't think it's murder, but can see why others do. It's a charged issue, no one answer is correct.

[obfuscator]

So it comes down to this: a woman should be able to have an abortion in the first and second trimester for whatever reason that she wants. Ideally you could put a restriction on the third trimester for "only if the health of the fetus or mother is in danger," but there's no reason for that because of the reasons I laid out above.

 

I see restrictions creep with chauvinists wanting to take away a woman's freedom, and I stand by my convictions that I do not trust the right-wing to settle for "late term only if..." They will continue to march, taking every last inch of that rope. Don't believe me? Look in America with states like Oklahoma, forcing women to get an ultrasound and have the doctor describe the fetus in great detail before she has the abortion.

 

I don't see why, regardless of reason, a woman should have a right to murder another person.

 

And yes, pro-lifers (such as myself) will continue to protest until all abortion is illegal, except in cases where the life of the mother is threatened.

It's not a person, it's a fetus. A shell of what will become a person. It's just preventing a life from happening not ending one. If you want to illegalize preventing life then why should masturbation, condoms, and birth control be legal?

 

I definitely agree with you, but the whole is-abortion-murder debate is as old as the concept of abortions itself.

 

I don't think it's murder, but can see why others do. It's a charged issue, no one answer is correct.

 

Killing living, reproducing cells is killing, not preventing.

 

And yes, I am morally opposed to birth control, condoms, and masturbation, although that's a debate for a different time.

[Howlin0001]

I don't see why, regardless of reason, a woman should have a right to murder another person.

 

And yes, pro-lifers (such as myself) will continue to protest until all abortion is illegal, except in cases where the life of the mother is threatened.

A little off topic here then.

Since you see it as murdering a person then how would things like driver licences, legal age for sex, legal age to drink alcohol be done? Since atm you only do/have it when you are like 18/21 etc years old. How do you know when a person is really 18/21 years old?

(Or am I talking out of my [wagon] now?)

[obfuscator]

I don't see why, regardless of reason, a woman should have a right to murder another person.

 

And yes, pro-lifers (such as myself) will continue to protest until all abortion is illegal, except in cases where the life of the mother is threatened.

A little off topic here then.

Since you see it as murdering a person then how would things like driver licences, legal age for sex, legal age to drink alcohol be done? Since atm you only do/have it when you are like 18/21 etc years old. How do you know when a person is really 18/21 years old?

(Or am I talking out of my [wagon] now?)

Birth has always been the "legal" start of life, but in the long run, its 9 months. There's no point to changing it, but if the legal definition were to change, people could vote at 17 years 3 months, drive at 15 years 3 months, etc. Not a big difference.

[Riku3220]

I don't see why, regardless of reason, a woman should have a right to murder another person.

 

And yes, pro-lifers (such as myself) will continue to protest until all abortion is illegal, except in cases where the life of the mother is threatened.

A little off topic here then.

Since you see it as murdering a person then how would things like driver licences, legal age for sex, legal age to drink alcohol be done? Since atm you only do/have it when you are like 18/21 etc years old. How do you know when a person is really 18/21 years old?

(Or am I talking out of my [wagon] now?)

Well there's the fact that most people don't keep track of the date of conception...

[Faux]

I'm pro-choice. I've been in situations where we had to consider abortion just in case. Having a kid without proper education or career is one of the worst decisions a person can make.

 

But I do agree that calling it a fetus and "not a baby!" to justify abortion is a load of crap.