Abortion in Canada

[Riku3220]

Sperm don't undergo mitosis: once they're sperm (or eggs), they no longer grow, divide, and grow. Sperm also don't carry enough genetic material to be a full human being.

A unique human being comes into existence at fertilization; an egg and sperm are joined, completing the 23 pairs of chromosomes. Shortly after fertilization, mitosis begins and the human being grows. Destroying this life is murder - a completely unique individual dies. Life doesn't begin before that, or after that (ACOG would define it as "implantation" to avoid calling the pill, plan b, etc. an abortifacient, this was a purely political move and is technically incorrect).

This whole "Life is such a precious thing" coming from pro-lifers is really starting to get on my nerves. By your definition of life, killing an insect is murder. Now you'll probably say that the life of a potential human and the life of an insect are different. Now tell me what has the insect done to deserve death? It ate some of your crops? It sucked your blood and made you itch? That's just surviving for them but nobody ever thinks twice about pulling out the fly swatter or taking off their shoe do they? Life isn't precious to you, human life is and the way I'm seeing it, some people need to be sprayed with bug spray more than the actual bugs.

 

Do you plan on adopting? By encouraging women to give birth and put their child up for adoption and then not adopting yourself then you aren't helping. Sure you made some kid experience life, however good it can get in a foster home or orphanage, but you're just overcrowding the adoption system and making another kid who probably would've been adopted wait longer because they thought the other was oh so cute.

[Nenga]

I really don't care when life begins, say it begins when you're a sperm, whatever.

Sperm don't undergo mitosis: once they're sperm (or eggs), they no longer grow, divide, and grow. Sperm also don't carry enough genetic material to be a full human being.

A unique human being comes into existence at fertilization; an egg and sperm are joined, completing the 23 pairs of chromosomes. Shortly after fertilization, mitosis begins and the human being grows. Destroying this life is murder - a completely unique individual dies. Life doesn't begin before that, or after that (ACOG would define it as "implantation" to avoid calling the pill, plan b, etc. an abortifacient, this was a purely political move and is technically incorrect).

 

I said I don't care when life begins, that means I don't care about you definition either.

 

My issue with pro-life is that once a woman becomes pregnant she would not be in control of her own body, she can only choose to have the child, and that's just wrong forcing a life altering choice on somebody.

She became pregnant, she was never "in control" of her own body anyways.

 

So before she became pregnant who was in control if she was never in control of her own body? It is not right to tell someone they're not in control of their own body anyway, as long as the child is still in the woman's body it is part of her, and she should have the right to choose what to do.

 

And you're condemning places for trying to prevent pregnancies? People are going to have sex, instead of putting our fingers in our ears and pretending not to hear it, we should try to help them.

Planned Parenthood (and other abortion providers) profits from abortion. How do you get people pregnant? You convince them to have sex. Only way for someone to "accidentally" get pregnant is by having sex. If you don't want a kid, keep your pants zipped up. And as a society we need to change our mentality: a baby is a blessing and not a problem.

This whole "people are going to do it anyway, so lets [help them... legalize it... etc]" argument is trash. Murder is wrong, but people are going to do it anyway. Why should we help them do it?

How did the human race survive up to this point? The first humans followed their urges and had sex, and reproduced. People have not changed for thousand of years, they still have the urge to have sex, what makes you think that will change now?. So if they're gonna have sex, then atleast try to keep them safe. Say it's murder all you like, a woman should have a choice over what happens to her, take care of the people we already have here.

[Romy]

Sees_all, your agenda borders on individual dictatorship. No one should have a say on women's (or people in general's) freedom to decide what to do with their own body. You think it's wrong, that's your opinion, but if someone doesn't want to have a child, they should not. Because they're likely to hate their child, not care for him, not be able to provide for him, the list for problems with having an unwanted child goes on endlessly.

 

 

No one should be able to force a woman into having a child. If she thinks she couldn't provide for him/her doesn't want him/her, knows he/she'll be born ill (and not want an ill child), or whatever other [bleep]ing reason. A child born to that reality is going to have a terrible life.

 

 

 

Whether your appriciate every life, or you don't, you shouldn't have a say in what each individual wants to do with it's own body. Period.

[sees_all1]

I said I don't care when life begins, that means I don't care about you definition either.

So, lets then call abortion for what it is: murder. You'll agree with me that stopping a beating heart is murder?

 

She became pregnant, she was never "in control" of her own body anyways.

 

So before she became pregnant who was in control if she was never in control of her own body? It is not right to tell someone they're not in control of their own body anyway, as long as the child is still in the woman's body it is part of her, and she should have the right to choose what to do.

You're not in control of your body. Try to hold your breathe indefinitely. Eventually you'll pass out and start breathing again anyway. Am I in the wrong for telling you this?

You'll have a heard time finding a doctor that would amputate your thumbs, with no pretense. You're not in control of your body. If you had complete control, you could just think, "I don't want my thumbs anymore," and they'd fall off.

This idea that it's "my body my choice" is a very shortsighted one. That child in the womb has its own body, its separate and complete from the mother's.

But if you still want women to have the "right" to chose to what happens to their children, give them all the information. Show them exactly how big and what distinguishable features their baby has. Give them a 4d ultrasound and let them see their baby's face, it move its arms and legs. Refuse to muddy the terminology or dehumanize their baby, because its incorrect scientifically, as well as morally. The pro-"choice" side fights adamantly against these, because it "inconveniences" women from abortion on demand. They'd rather the mother think just once in her 36 weeks of gestation that "maybe I don't want this child", then she'll go to their facility, they'll dehumanize her child, and she'll consent with a tenth of the information she should've had.

 

How did the human race survive up to this point? The first humans followed their urges and had sex, and reproduced. People have not changed for thousand of years, they still have the urge to have sex, what makes you think that will change now?. So if they're gonna have sex, then atleast try to keep them safe. Say it's murder all you like, a woman should have a choice over what happens to her, take care of the people we already have here.

How will the human race survive after this point? If no one wants their children, and everyone grows old and dies, there will be no one left. It's already happening in Europe: the death rate is higher than the birth rate. It would be happening in the United States too if it wasn't for all the Catholic immigrants from Mexico.

[Howlin0001]

(Hell, the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, pushed birth control on the African American population because she believed, like Hitler, in eugenics).

So did Theodore Roosevelt and Winston Churchill believe in eugenics. Was there any need to make Hitler an example?

[i_love_burritos]

 

Really? You don't see anything wrong with forcing a woman to give birth to a dead fetus? The emotional trauma that she's already forced to bear knowing that her child will be dead isn't enough for you? You need to punish her further? This is exactly why abortion is never about "life," but about punishing women.

 

Do you also make special exceptions for rape and incest, too? The misogyny is overwhelming.

 

I'm not understanding you. Why would you get an abortion if your child is about to die anyway? And as for special exceptions for rape and incest, absolutely not. A child is still a child, regardless of the circumstances of its conception.

 

Why would any woman want to, having the previous knowledge that her unborn child is dead, and yet continue through with a stillbirth or miscarriage ? I think it just adds unnecessary pain and trauma.

[sees_all1]

(Hell, the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, pushed birth control on the African American population because she believed, like Hitler, in eugenics).

So did Theodore Roosevelt and Winston Churchill believe in eugenics. Was there any need to make Hitler an example?

 

To my knowledge, neither Roosevelt nor Churchill started an illegal birth control clinic in Harlem. Margaret Sanger did.

[Kiriyama]

I said I don't care when life begins, that means I don't care about you definition either.

So, lets then call abortion for what it is: murder. You'll agree with me that stopping a beating heart is murder?

 

So you agree with abortion for the first 6 weeks? It doesn't gain a heartbeat until then, so by your definition, it is not murder.

 

EDIT: Something for all you pro-lifers. Say we ban abortion, now, assuming the mother can't get it in a country where it is legal, what happens? Backstreet abortions. Which is better? Legal abortion in a safe environment done with sterile tools, or a questionable abortion which poses a lot of risk for the mother too?

Edited May 18, 2010 by Sworddude198

[obfuscator]

I said I don't care when life begins, that means I don't care about you definition either.

So, lets then call abortion for what it is: murder. You'll agree with me that stopping a beating heart is murder?

 

So you agree with abortion for the first 6 weeks? It doesn't gain a heartbeat until then, so by your definition, it is not murder.

 

EDIT: Something for all you pro-lifers. Say we ban abortion, now, assuming the mother can't get it in a country where it is legal, what happens? Backstreet abortions. Which is better? Legal abortion in a safe environment done with sterile tools, or a questionable abortion which poses a lot of risk for the mother too?

We bad abortion, less people do it. If abortion is legal in Canada, from what I understand 100,000 babies are killed each year.

 

I think we can safetley say that only 10% of abortions would still be attempted were it to be illegal, so then we would have 10,000 babies killed every year, with a chance for 10,000 mothers to die as well.

 

So, 100,000 dead? Or 20,000? You chose.

 

Note: The adoption and maternal support systems need a complete overhaul were abortion to actually be banned again so that women would have a real, legitimate option. Or at least a far better one then they have currently.

[qeltar]

I think we can safetley say that only 10% of abortions would still be attempted were it to be illegal, so then we would have 10,000 babies killed every year, with a chance for 10,000 mothers to die as well.

 

So, 100,000 dead? Or 20,000? You chose.

A perfectly valid position to hold if you think a lump of cells should have the same rights to life and freedom as a full-grown woman.

 

I don't. Most reasonable people don't.

 

A blastocyst is not a "child". It has the potential to become one. That's not the same thing.

 

Your position is a scary combination of religious brainwashing and flat out misogyny.

[Kiriyama]

How can they be dead if they never knew what life was?

 

Anyway, want to give some sources for your statistic and your number? Or is it your [wagon]?

 

Frankly, I'd choose to lose the 100,000 potential lives, rather than lose 10,000 mothers who may well be productive members of society.

[obfuscator]

How can they be dead if they never knew what life was?

 

Anyway, want to give some sources for your statistic and your number? Or is it your [wagon]?

 

Frankly, I'd choose to lose the 100,000 potential lives, rather than lose 10,000 mothers who may well be productive members of society.

So those unborn babies will never be productive members of your society, is that what you're saying?

 

A perfectly valid position to hold if you think a lump of cells should have the same rights to life and freedom as a full-grown woman.

 

I don't. Most reasonable people don't.

 

A blastocyst is not a "child". It has the potential to become one. That's not the same thing.

 

Your position is a scary combination of religious brainwashing and flat out misogyny.

 

A full grown woman, and man, and child of any age, and any animal is simply a larger lump of cells. I chose to give all lumps of cells with human DNA equality.

[Saru Inc]

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.

 

Or just people who never take a shower without their rubber ducky. I mean [cabbage], if you don't want a kid use protection. Now if there's a hole in the condom etc then I do understand. But you can buy a 36 pack at walmart for like $10...

 

I'm pro life as well. Even though there will always be extenuating circumstances, rape, etc. The majority of the time, if you don't think of the consequences when you are consummating etc, then it's your responsibility. Ignorance of the law is no excuse to not be punished. Which is a widely followed rule.

[Kiriyama]

How can they be dead if they never knew what life was?

 

Anyway, want to give some sources for your statistic and your number? Or is it your [wagon]?

 

Frankly, I'd choose to lose the 100,000 potential lives, rather than lose 10,000 mothers who may well be productive members of society.

So those unborn babies will never be productive members of your society, is that what you're saying?

 

At that precise moment, they are nothing more than a parasite feeding off their mother. They may well grow to be productive members of society, but the planet is crowded enough in areas without (using your numbers that have no source still) 90,000 more babies per year in 1 country. How do you know if they'll be productive members of society anyway?

 

Again, give me a source or I'll just assume the numbers come out your [wagon].

[obfuscator]

How can they be dead if they never knew what life was?

 

Anyway, want to give some sources for your statistic and your number? Or is it your [wagon]?

 

Frankly, I'd choose to lose the 100,000 potential lives, rather than lose 10,000 mothers who may well be productive members of society.

So those unborn babies will never be productive members of your society, is that what you're saying?

 

At that precise moment, they are nothing more than a parasite feeding off their mother. They may well grow to be productive members of society, but the planet is crowded enough in areas without (using your numbers that have no source still) 90,000 more babies per year in 1 country. How do you know if they'll be productive members of society anyway?

 

Again, give me a source or I'll just assume the numbers come out your [wagon].

 

How do you know that all these women having abortions are productive members of society?

 

http://www.webhart.net/vandee/abortstat.shtml

 

 

A full grown woman, and man, and child of any age, and any animal is simply a larger lump of cells. I chose to give all lumps of cells with human DNA equality.

Okay, so my toenail clippings have as much right to exist as you do. Thanks for the "clarification".

 

You are beyond reasoning with (not that this wasn't amply evident already.)

 

Enjoy your life of delusion. But keep it the hell away from those of us who have some sense. Religious fanatics are a grave danger to anyone who values liberty.

 

Hmm that's true, toenail clippings certainly don't deserve equal status. They represent a lump of cells with no meaning or potential.

 

However, a fetus is quite different. It represents a human being, and I maintain it is morally wrong to kill it off.

[Kiriyama]

How can they be dead if they never knew what life was?

 

Anyway, want to give some sources for your statistic and your number? Or is it your [wagon]?

 

Frankly, I'd choose to lose the 100,000 potential lives, rather than lose 10,000 mothers who may well be productive members of society.

So those unborn babies will never be productive members of your society, is that what you're saying?

 

At that precise moment, they are nothing more than a parasite feeding off their mother. They may well grow to be productive members of society, but the planet is crowded enough in areas without (using your numbers that have no source still) 90,000 more babies per year in 1 country. How do you know if they'll be productive members of society anyway?

 

Again, give me a source or I'll just assume the numbers come out your [wagon].

 

How do you know that all these women having abortions are productive members of society?

 

http://www.webhart.net/vandee/abortstat.shtml

 

Firstly, thank you for finally providing a source.

 

Secondly, I'll bold the relevant part that may help your understanding. I didn't state that they all were productive members of society, if you'll read again.

 

EDIT: Got a number for years beyond 2004?

[obfuscator]

Firstly, thank you for finally providing a source.

 

Secondly, I'll bold the relevant part that may help your understanding. I didn't state that they all were productive members of society, if you'll read again.

 

EDIT: Got a number for years beyond 2004?

 

I'm sure you can google it, and the overall trend should be fairly obvious.

 

But it's morally right to make women slaves to a ball of cells. :rolleyes:

 

No, it's morally right that a women should have to give birth to an innocent child.

 

Do you also support making men slaves to the state? Or just women?

If I had my way, it would be mandatory for a man, regardless of circumstance of conception, to pay child support to any woman who had his child.

 

The day will come when we can make fully-grown human beings from nearly any cell in the body. Will it then be "morally reprehensible" to get a haircut?

 

Hair isn't a person, and never will be. A fetus has that potential, and barring any vacuums ripping it apart, probably will be.

 

I suppose you'll have to wait for your church leaders to tell you what to believe about that (once they figure out what to make up that serves their self-interest).

 

I'm not a practicing member of any religion.

[sees_all1]

A perfectly valid position to hold if you think a lump of cells should have the same rights to life and freedom as a full-grown woman.

 

I don't. Most reasonable people don't.

 

A blastocyst is not a "child". It has the potential to become one. That's not the same thing.

 

Your position is a scary combination of religious brainwashing and flat out misogyny.

Define what a human being is then. You attack our definitions, but fail to substitute your own. And I haven't used anything religious in my arguments, its all scientific. Your arguments are based on opinions, not mine.

 

So you agree with abortion for the first 6 weeks? It doesn't gain a heartbeat until then, so by your definition, it is not murder.

It is a life. It isn't potential life. If left alone (and not cut out of the mother and flushed down the sink), that child will be born.

And the heart starts beating around the third week, not the sixth. Please, get your facts straight. The baby only resembles a "ball of cells" until the first week. You'll find it has a distinctive human shape after that.

 

 

 

 

Missed this:

This whole "Life is such a precious thing" coming from pro-lifers is really starting to get on my nerves. By your definition of life, killing an insect is murder. Now you'll probably say that the life of a potential human and the life of an insect are different. Now tell me what has the insect done to deserve death? It ate some of your crops? It sucked your blood and made you itch? That's just surviving for them but nobody ever thinks twice about pulling out the fly swatter or taking off their shoe do they? Life isn't precious to you, human life is and the way I'm seeing it, some people need to be sprayed with bug spray more than the actual bugs.

 

Do you plan on adopting? By encouraging women to give birth and put their child up for adoption and then not adopting yourself then you aren't helping. Sure you made some kid experience life, however good it can get in a foster home or orphanage, but you're just overcrowding the adoption system and making another kid who probably would've been adopted wait longer because they thought the other was oh so cute.

Here's one for you - It is a crime to disturb sea turtle nests. Society values seas turtles more than humans. Same with bald eagles.

I'll have you know that I've volunteered for a crisis pregnancy center. You'll also be surprised to learn that there are more adoptive parents in the United States than there are children to adopt: its why people have started adopting internationally.

[qeltar]

But it's morally right to make women slaves to a ball of cells. :rolleyes:

 

No, it's morally right that a women should have to give birth to an innocent child.

So your answer is yes, you support women being made into slaves with no control over their own bodies.

 

If I had my way, it would be mandatory for a man, regardless of circumstance of conception, to pay child support to any woman who had his child.

A very convenient position to hold since we all know that will never be possible. Very convenient indeed.

 

Hair isn't a person, and never will be. A fetus has that potential, and barring any vacuums ripping it apart, probably will be.

You missed the point entirely. :rolleyes:

 

I'm not a practicing member of any religion.

Maybe not, but you're still pretty badly programmed.

[Kiriyama]

So you agree with abortion for the first 6 weeks? It doesn't gain a heartbeat until then, so by your definition, it is not murder.

It is a life. It isn't potential life. If left alone (and not cut out of the mother and flushed down the sink), that child will be born.

And the heart starts beating around the third week, not the sixth. Please, get your facts straight. The baby only resembles a "ball of cells" until the first week. You'll find it has a distinctive human shape after that.

 

"The fifth week is the time of the first missed period when most women are only just beginning to think they may be pregnant. Yet already the baby's nervous system is starting to develop. A groove forms in the top layer of cells. The cells fold up and round to make a hollow tube called the neural tube. This will become the baby's brain and spinal cord, so the tube has a 'head end' and a 'tail end' 'head end' and a 'tail end'. Defects in this tube are the cause of spina bifida.

 

At the same time the heart is forming and the baby already has some of its own blood vessels. A string of these blood vessels connects baby and mother and will become the umbilical cord.

 

There is now a large bulge where the heart is and a bump for the head because the brain is developing."

 

That's between 5-7 weeks.

http://www.askbaby.com/foetal-development.htm

 

If you want more, just ask. We learn in school that the heart begins to beat at 6 weeks, and there are many other places which can verify this.

 

http://www.babyandbump.com/pregnancy-first-trimester/162599-does-babys-heart-start-beating.html This is a mother's forum who :shock: have all had children.

 

Again, if you want more, just ask.

[sees_all1]

"The fifth week is the time of the first missed period when most women are only just beginning to think they may be pregnant. Yet already the baby's nervous system is starting to develop. A groove forms in the top layer of cells. The cells fold up and round to make a hollow tube called the neural tube. This will become the baby's brain and spinal cord, so the tube has a 'head end' and a 'tail end' 'head end' and a 'tail end'. Defects in this tube are the cause of spina bifida.

 

At the same time the heart is forming and the baby already has some of its own blood vessels. A string of these blood vessels connects baby and mother and will become the umbilical cord.

 

There is now a large bulge where the heart is and a bump for the head because the brain is developing."

 

That's between 5-7 weeks.

http://www.askbaby.com/foetal-development.htm

 

If you want more, just ask. We learn in school that the heart begins to beat at 6 weeks, and there are many other places which can verify this.

 

http://www.babyandbump.com/pregnancy-first-trimester/162599-does-babys-heart-start-beating.html This is a mother's forum who :shock: have all had children.

 

Again, if you want more, just ask.

 

http://www.secondlookproject.org/tslp_fetal.html

14-21 days: The cardio-vascular system is the first major system to function in the human embryo. Blood is circulating and the heart begins to beat at 21 or 22 days, and can be detected on ultrasound.3

This source is a heck of a lot more specific than yours, and isn't a forum.

It also cites everything.

3 weeks. Not 5-7.

[qeltar]

A human being is whatever people define it to be.

 

Abortion is unique among debates because it is a situation where there are two conflicting rights.

 

Extremists on both sides try to pretend that this is not the case, and that either the mother's right to freedom over her body or the fetus's right to continue existing in her body are absolute.

 

Reasonable people understand that compromise is needed because of the inherent conflict that exists between these two rights. One reasonable compromise is to allow early abortion but to forbid it past the point of viability.

 

I believe that life begins at conception, but that it is contrary to a free society to force women to bear fetuses to term if they are not willing to do so. The fetus does not have the right to demand that a woman place her life and well-being below its own. When a fetus can be brought out of the womb and have a reasonable chance of surviving *without* harming the mother, then abortion is no longer a reasonable procedure. When the fetus is nothing more than a blastocyst, forbidding abortion on the grounds of what it "might be" is tantamous to imposed slavery.

[Kiriyama]

"The fifth week is the time of the first missed period when most women are only just beginning to think they may be pregnant. Yet already the baby's nervous system is starting to develop. A groove forms in the top layer of cells. The cells fold up and round to make a hollow tube called the neural tube. This will become the baby's brain and spinal cord, so the tube has a 'head end' and a 'tail end' 'head end' and a 'tail end'. Defects in this tube are the cause of spina bifida.

 

At the same time the heart is forming and the baby already has some of its own blood vessels. A string of these blood vessels connects baby and mother and will become the umbilical cord.

 

There is now a large bulge where the heart is and a bump for the head because the brain is developing."

 

That's between 5-7 weeks.

http://www.askbaby.com/foetal-development.htm

 

If you want more, just ask. We learn in school that the heart begins to beat at 6 weeks, and there are many other places which can verify this.

 

http://www.babyandbump.com/pregnancy-first-trimester/162599-does-babys-heart-start-beating.html This is a mother's forum who :shock: have all had children.

 

Again, if you want more, just ask.

 

http://www.secondlookproject.org/tslp_fetal.html

14-21 days: The cardio-vascular system is the first major system to function in the human embryo. Blood is circulating and the heart begins to beat at 21 or 22 days, and can be detected on ultrasound.3

This source is a heck of a lot more specific than yours, and isn't a forum.

It also cites everything.

3 weeks. Not 5-7.

 

This is going to just be us comparing sources..

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_development#Week_6

 

Cites a book, hell, I'll even put the link to the citation.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_development#cite_note-larsen-4

 

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=H5qw-jiMc44C&printsec=frontcover&dq=human+embryology&hl=en&ei=6eXyS-uCEsv7_AbJxKGVDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=heart&f=false

Page 157.

 

EDIT: Page 158 shows that it's 21 days for the heartbeat, but 5-7 weeks for the heart to develop into a full human heart.

 

EDIT2: I think the problem of times arise from it being 21 days after conception, but 5-7 weeks after the last period. To put it in basic terms.

[Rebdragon]

Stop calling him a deluded, programmer fanatic. I think he's wrong too but that's no reason to attack him for not agreeing with you.

 

Think of it simply. For whatever reason, he thinks that human life starts at conception. Thus he believes that the inconvience of a human is not worth the death of another human. To him it's murder. You might not think that, but he does.

 

This is basically the entire pro-life stance. Why are you treating it like an alien thing? At least listen to him instead of attacking.

[sees_all1]

I believe that life begins at conception, but that it is contrary to a free society to force women to bear fetuses to term if they are not willing to do so. The fetus does not have the right to demand that a woman place her life and well-being below its own. When a fetus can be brought out of the womb and have a reasonable chance of surviving *without* harming the mother, then abortion is no longer a reasonable procedure. When the fetus is nothing more than a blastocyst, forbidding abortion on the grounds of what it "might be" is tantamous to imposed slavery.

 

Looks like you'll agree with my position that abortion is always undesirable, in every circumstance. And in the act of abortion, a human dies.

If you believe that, there's not much we can debate, because we're on the same page.