Abortion in Canada

[sees_all1]

People are willing to adopt babies. That isn't our problem now.

sorry, that's directly wrong.

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

That isn't our problem now. It may be a problem in the future, but that isn't our problem now.

 

1% vs. 43% thus, you would need 43 times more women willing to adopt for the numbers to compare, if no one were to abort. 42% of un-aborted children in the US would be without parents.

There are many many more things that you haven't accounted for, such as parents that would give birth and decide to keep their children, or people that wouldn't have sex if they knew there'd be consequences. But even if everyone that would have had an abortion put their child up for adoption, I'd much prefer to have a bunch of parent-less babies than a bunch of dead babies.

 

Has anyone who wants to force women to watch an ultrasound of their fetus before they abort ever thought of the women who's child WILL die if they don't abort? Getting rid of a dead fetus from her uterus is an abortion.

I wish you could understand how stupid your logic is. Their child will die if they don't abort... so instead of letting something natural happen, they intervene and kill it quicker? Wha?

 

They only think of women who are [bleep]s, and should have just kept their legs closed. That's what this abortion debate has ALWAYS been about.

 

That's just sick. You're a disgusting misogynist, sees_all1.

Have you read half of anything that I've said? Do you understand it?

I'm not going to spend my time arguing with a brick wall. If you refuse to read and attempt to understand what I've said and instead attack my character, I refuse to spend another second on you.

[tortilliachp]

People are willing to adopt babies. That isn't our problem now.

sorry, that's directly wrong.

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

That isn't our problem now. It may be a problem in the future, but that isn't our problem now.

 

1% vs. 43% thus, you would need 43 times more women willing to adopt for the numbers to compare, if no one were to abort. 42% of un-aborted children in the US would be without parents.

There are many many more things that you haven't accounted for, such as parents that would give birth and decide to keep their children, or people that wouldn't have sex if they knew there'd be consequences. But even if everyone that would have had an abortion put their child up for adoption, I'd much prefer to have a bunch of parent-less babies than a bunch of dead babies.

 

either way, who's going to pay? Who's going to supply EVERYTHING for thousands of children, every year, until they turn 18? How much is the average american willing to pay? I don't think your new "anti-abortion tax" would get much support. you'd need a social democracy to pay for it all, with the associated tax hikes. how do you ensure they don't become b-class citizens, who have the bare necessities, but nothing more?

 

who is going to take care of them all? where are you going to find qualified staff? Who's going to pay for their housing? your argument is based on changing the entire behavior of everyone who takes an abortion.

 

again, it seems ideology solves all the practical problems.

[sees_all1]

either way, who's going to pay? Who's going to supply EVERYTHING for thousands of children, every year, until they turn 18? How much is the average american willing to pay? I don't think your new "anti-abortion tax" would get much support. you'd need a social democracy to pay for it all, with the associated tax hikes. how do you ensure they don't become b-class citizens, who have the bare necessities, but nothing more?

 

who is going to take care of them all? where are you going to find qualified staff? Who's going to pay for their housing? your argument is based on changing the entire behavior of everyone who takes an abortion.

 

again, it seems ideology solves all the practical problems.

Trust me, those would be problems I'd love to have, because it means that millions of children aren't being killed in the womb.

Who took care of those children before the 1970s? Their parents. Who took care of teen pregnancies? The teens, and their parents.

 

My argument is very simple:

1-Abortion is always the undesired outcome.

2-Abortion ends an innocent human life.

3-People that procure abortions are either misinformed, or do it for (in my opinion selfish) convenience reasons - "Its inconvenient for me to carry a baby to term right now".

[Kiriyama]

either way, who's going to pay? Who's going to supply EVERYTHING for thousands of children, every year, until they turn 18? How much is the average american willing to pay? I don't think your new "anti-abortion tax" would get much support. you'd need a social democracy to pay for it all, with the associated tax hikes. how do you ensure they don't become b-class citizens, who have the bare necessities, but nothing more?

 

who is going to take care of them all? where are you going to find qualified staff? Who's going to pay for their housing? your argument is based on changing the entire behavior of everyone who takes an abortion.

 

again, it seems ideology solves all the practical problems.

Trust me, those would be problems I'd love to have, because it means that millions of children aren't being killed in the womb.

Who took care of those children before the 1970s? Their parents. Who took care of teen pregnancies? The teens, and their parents.

 

My argument is very simple:

1-Abortion is always the undesired outcome.

2-Abortion ends an innocent human life.

3-People that procure abortions are either misinformed, or do it for (in my opinion selfish) convenience reasons - "Its inconvenient for me to carry a baby to term right now".

 

15 year old gets raped and falls pregnant.

 

You'd have her carry that child?

[sees_all1]

15 year old gets raped and falls pregnant.

 

You'd have her carry that child?

Simple answer: two wrongs don't make a right. Yes, I would. It isn't the child's fault that its conceived. I've listened to several prominent pro-life speakers who were conceived in rape, talking about how thankful they were that their mother loved them enough to give birth and give up for adoption. When I get the time, I'll search for it on YouTube.

 

By the way, in your hypothetical case: becoming pregnant from rape is incredibly rare. Rape is a very traumatic experience, one which stresses the victim to an incredible amount. I'm not saying it wouldn't happen or hasn't happened, I am saying its less than a chance in a million to occur. very unlikely.

[Racheya]

15 year old gets raped and falls pregnant.

 

You'd have her carry that child?

Simple answer: two wrongs don't make a right. Yes, I would. It isn't the child's fault that its conceived. I've listened to several prominent pro-life speakers who were conceived in rape, talking about how thankful they were that their mother loved them enough to give birth and give up for adoption. When I get the time, I'll search for it on YouTube.

 

By the way, in your hypothetical case: becoming pregnant from rape is incredibly rare. Rape is a very traumatic experience, one which stresses the victim to an incredible amount. I'm not saying it wouldn't happen or hasn't happened, I am saying its less than a chance in a million to occur.

It's not the mother's fault either that it was conceived. You'd force her to carry the child for 9 months? Pregnancy and childbirth are stressful enough for a woman, imagine having to give birth to your rapist's child?

 

And just because someone is 'stressed' doesn't mean they won't conceive a child. It's not incredibly rare at all.

[OldJoe]

Let's take it one step further, how about incest/rape and pregnancy?

 

I honestly couldn't be more disgusted when hearing that someone would want to force a woman/girl that gets raped to have the child.

[obfuscator]

I couldn't be more disgusted hearing that a woman who has been a victim of a terrible crime commits one herself to make things better.

[Kiriyama]

Abortion is legal. Therefore it's not a crime.

 

Maybe in your eyes, but not in the eyes of the law, which y'know... Actually matters in this case.

 

EDIT: Sees_all, got a source for that statistic?

[Bouwzie]

15 year old gets raped and falls pregnant.

 

You'd have her carry that child?

Simple answer: two wrongs don't make a right. Yes, I would. It isn't the child's fault that its conceived. I've listened to several prominent pro-life speakers who were conceived in rape, talking about how thankful they were that their mother loved them enough to give birth and give up for adoption. When I get the time, I'll search for it on YouTube.

 

By the way, in your hypothetical case: becoming pregnant from rape is incredibly rare. Rape is a very traumatic experience, one which stresses the victim to an incredible amount. I'm not saying it wouldn't happen or hasn't happened, I am saying its less than a chance in a million to occur.

 

Yes, but those people have experienced life. An unborn baby has not.

[obfuscator]

So because you've experienced something, it automatically gives you preferential treatment over others?

 

I've been to college before, does this mean that when I re-apply I should be given precedent over those who have not?

[Racheya]

So because you've experienced something, it automatically gives you preferential treatment over others?

 

I've been to college before, does this mean that when I re-apply I should be given precedent over those who have not?

Life isn't University.

 

If you are never born, you don't know what you're missing. You can't feel bad or be at any disadvantage for not being alive because you're not conscious. The foetuses aren't alive, or even dead. They're just a mass of cells until they emerge from the womb as a human being. I think this is what the abortion debate boils down to - is a foetus a life?

[obfuscator]

So because you've experienced something, it automatically gives you preferential treatment over others?

 

I've been to college before, does this mean that when I re-apply I should be given precedent over those who have not?

Life isn't University.

 

If you are never born, you don't know what you're missing. You can't feel bad or be at any disadvantage for not being alive because you're not conscious. The foetuses aren't alive, or even dead. They're just a mass of cells until they emerge from the womb as a human being. I think this is what the abortion debate boils down to - is a foetus a life?

The scientific definition of life involves reproducing cells with genetic makeup. According the the scientific definition a fetus is alive.

[tortilliachp]

So because you've experienced something, it automatically gives you preferential treatment over others?

 

I've been to college before, does this mean that when I re-apply I should be given precedent over those who have not?

 

it would be easier for you get get acceptance to a university, yes that's how most education system i know of work. in that situation, qualifications count at least.

 

(this is not a parallel to abortion, necessarily, however it's how almost all tiers of society function that way. wanna change the rest of society too?)

[sees_all1]

EDIT: Sees_all, got a source for that statistic?

 

Looking for it. That one was out of memory, where someone else broke it down using generics (i.e.3-7 day fertility window, chance of implantation, chance of rape, etc.)

The number came out to be pretty small.

 

 

One thing that I've found was the probability of getting pregnant with a single act of intercourse, think it was ~5%. That was from a survey, and from people trying to get pregnant.

5% is nowhere near as small as you'd want it to be, and certainly not the chance in a million I referenced.

 

There was a phone survey of 8,000 cold calls to random households / random women. 1,000 of them said they were "raped" (unwilling forced vaginal intercourse, which is much narrower definition than rape), at least once. From that, ~400 were only raped once. From that, a small percentage of them became pregnant (4%?).

.2% chance of becoming pregnant in a lifetime due to rape? Once again not a chance in a million. I didn't read into the statistical accuracies of the study (any biases that may have occurred, or what region they were contacting).

 

 

Another thing I came across were of rape victims that became pregnant, 50% had abortions, 11% had miscarriages (I'm unsure if they intended to carry to term or not), 39% gave birth (and of those about 1/5 gave up for adoption).

That may have been ONLY for women that realized they were pregnant 2-3 months later, once again I'm going from memory.

 

 

 

Regardless, in this entire debate this is a small fringe amount of the number of abortions that occur, and if it was the only problem I'd be happy (in the sense that a million lives a year are spared) to deal with it. It would also be a "case-by-case" basis, instead of abortion on demand for any reason.

[magekillr]

Has anyone who wants to force women to watch an ultrasound of their fetus before they abort ever thought of the women who's child WILL die if they don't abort? Getting rid of a dead fetus from her uterus is an abortion.

I wish you could understand how stupid your logic is. Their child will die if they don't abort... so instead of letting something natural happen, they intervene and kill it quicker? Wha?

 

NO! It's going to die, so rather than be put through the torment of giving a still birth, or having a dead fetus flushed out, they remove it before that happens.

 

My logic is stupid? Listen, son, you're the one forcing a woman to carry a parasite that she may or may not want, which is bad enough. Now you're saying that she doesn't have the freedom to remove the fetus that's already dead? She must be forced to look at the ultrasound? That's sadism.

 

They only think of women who are [bleep]s, and should have just kept their legs closed. That's what this abortion debate has ALWAYS been about.

 

That's just sick. You're a disgusting misogynist, sees_all1.

Have you read half of anything that I've said? Do you understand it?

 

Yes, and I understand that you're a misogynist. Lemme know what I missed.

[Iamdan]

Trust me, those would be problems I'd love to have, because it means that millions of children aren't being killed

 

Kindly stop pretending that you hold human life in such high esteem. Or at least answer my post about consumer culture killing people.

 

 

My argument is very simple:

1-Abortion is always the undesired outcome.

2-Abortion ends an innocent human life.

3-People that procure abortions are either misinformed, or do it for (in my opinion selfish) convenience reasons - "Its inconvenient for me to carry a baby to term right now".

 

I'm assuming you believe 1 because of 2. So they are essentially the same.

 

1/2, you have ignored every argument I've made against it.

3, why should it matter what their reasoning is? Whether they are informed or not is the fault of the doctor.

[sees_all1]

Has anyone who wants to force women to watch an ultrasound of their fetus before they abort ever thought of the women who's child WILL die if they don't abort? Getting rid of a dead fetus from her uterus is an abortion.

I wish you could understand how stupid your logic is. Their child will die if they don't abort... so instead of letting something natural happen, they intervene and kill it quicker? Wha?

 

NO! It's going to die, so rather than be put through the torment of giving a still birth, or having a dead fetus flushed out, they remove it before that happens.

 

My logic is stupid? Listen, son, you're the one forcing a woman to carry a parasite that she may or may not want, which is bad enough. Now you're saying that she doesn't have the freedom to remove the fetus that's already dead? She must be forced to look at the ultrasound? That's sadism.

Removing a dead baby isn't an abortion.

If you think it is, you're sadly mistaken.

 

 

They only think of women who are [bleep]s, and should have just kept their legs closed. That's what this abortion debate has ALWAYS been about.

 

That's just sick. You're a disgusting misogynist, sees_all1.

Have you read half of anything that I've said? Do you understand it?

 

Yes, and I understand that you're a misogynist. Lemme know what I missed.

You're trying my patience. Rather than stoop to your level, I'm going to ignore you from now on.

[Kiriyama]

Medical Dictionary

 

abor·tion definition

Pronunciation: /ə-ˈbȯr-shən/

Function: n

1 : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus:

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Abortion

 

Enjoy the definition, Sees_all.

[Bouwzie]

 

You're trying my patience. Rather than stoop to your level, I'm going to ignore you from now on.

I'd actually say that you are stooping below his level now.

[sees_all1]

Trust me, those would be problems I'd love to have, because it means that millions of children aren't being killed

 

Kindly stop pretending that you hold human life in such high esteem. Or at least answer my post about consumer culture killing people.

I'd prefer to stick to this single issue, but whatever:

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.

Why are you trying to guilt us about our positions in life? Especially since you have no idea about our individual backgrounds, where we're headed or where we're going.

It seems to me that you're inferring I'm a hypocrite. Trust me on this - we're either hypocrites, or we're scum of the earth. What's worse - to have morals and have guilt when you know you've done something wrong, or to have no morals and feel no guilt even though everything you're doing is wrong?

 

You tell me that I don't hold life in such high esteem. I say you're dead wrong. I've spent a lot of time researching this subject, forming an educated opinion. I've participated in many different pro-life events, I've raised thousands of dollars to help pro-life organizations, and that was all before I entered college.

 

You tell me that I should avoid things that are wrong - I agree. When my favorite yogurt brand decides that it wants to support a pro-choice organization, I refuse to buy it. But I'm guessing you'd have a hard time understanding why I'd do that if you can't recognize an absolute moral.

 

 

My argument is very simple:

1-Abortion is always the undesired outcome.

2-Abortion ends an innocent human life.

3-People that procure abortions are either misinformed, or do it for (in my opinion selfish) convenience reasons - "Its inconvenient for me to carry a baby to term right now".

 

I'm assuming you believe 1 because of 2. So they are essentially the same.

 

1/2, you have ignored every argument I've made against it.

3, why should it matter what their reasoning is? Whether they are informed or not is the fault of the doctor.

Scientific Fact: Abortion kills a human being.

Something everyone can agree on: Abortion is always an undesirable outcome. - All the events leading up to the abortion were either failures of the individuals, or failures of society. A person doesn't magically become pregnant. If it was rape, that's a failure of society. If it was lust, that was the failure of the individual. There's a little logic behind that statement, but I figure once you understand what I mean you'll agree.

Something people won't admit to: People that procure abortions are either misinformed or selfish. What is this entire discussion about? An individual woman's right to choose? Individual is the key word, its why abortion is selfish. For others, that were misinformed, it is the fault of the doctor, and that's why there needs to be laws in place that stop the misinformation.

 

 

 

EDIT: (saves a double post)

Medical Dictionary

 

abor·tion definition

Pronunciation: /ə-ˈbȯr-shən/

Function: n

1 : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus:

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Abortion

 

Enjoy the definition, Sees_all.

Cool beans, you stuck me on a definition. But that's completely ignoring the context that we're discussing this in.

If that's what he really wanted to talk about, then his fault for not being clearer.

From now on I'll refer to it as "induced abortion" because you guys refuse to stick to the topic on hand.

[Iamdan]

You are wrong because I say so and I boycott pro choice yogurt

 

Sorry, try again.

 

Don't talk about absolute morals against suffering when you contribute to our consumer culture.

 

Scientific Fact: Abortion kills a human being.

Something everyone can agree on: Abortion is always an undesirable outcome. - All the events leading up to the abortion were either failures of the individuals, or failures of society. A person doesn't magically become pregnant. If it was rape, that's a failure of society. If it was lust, that was the failure of the individual. There's a little logic behind that statement, but I figure once you understand what I mean you'll agree.

Something people won't admit to: People that procure abortions are either misinformed or selfish. What is this entire discussion about? An individual woman's right to choose? Individual is the key word, its why abortion is selfish. For others, that were misinformed, it is the fault of the doctor, and that's why there needs to be laws in place that stop the misinformation.

 

No, abortion ends a life. An issue that I have already addressed.

 

Wanting to decide what happens to your body is hardly selfish.

 

I don't think anybody will oppose laws telling doctors to 'inform' before they perform an abortion. That is not an issue with whether abortion is ok or not.

[Kiriyama]

[hide=quote]

EDIT: (saves a double post)

Medical Dictionary

 

abor·tion definition

Pronunciation: /ə-ˈbȯr-shən/

Function: n

1 : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus:

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Abortion

 

Enjoy the definition, Sees_all.

Cool beans, you stuck me on a definition. But that's completely ignoring the context that we're discussing this in.

If that's what he really wanted to talk about, then his fault for not being clearer.

From now on I'll refer to it as "induced abortion" because you guys refuse to stick to the topic on hand.

[/hide]

 

I'm sorry, but what? Your whole post in which I was aiming that at was just you claiming that a removing a dead fetus is not an abortion, when by definition it is, and you saying you're just going to ignore a user.

 

So how is that ignoring a context, when I reply to a relevant part? Or do you just dislike being corrected?

 

Also, you claimed to have looked extremely deeply into the pro-life side, have you actually looked as hard into pro-choice? Or is your opinion based on a lack of information?

[tortilliachp]

Why are you trying to guilt us about our positions in life? Especially since you have no idea about our individual backgrounds, where we're headed or where we're going.

It seems to me that you're inferring I'm a hypocrite. Trust me on this - we're either hypocrites, or we're scum of the earth. What's worse - to have morals and have guilt when you know you've done something wrong, or to have no morals and feel no guilt even though everything you're doing is wrong?

 

You tell me that I don't hold life in such high esteem. I say you're dead wrong. I've spent a lot of time researching this subject, forming an educated opinion. I've participated in many different pro-life events, I've raised thousands of dollars to help pro-life organizations, and that was all before I entered college.

 

You tell me that I should avoid things that are wrong - I agree. When my favorite yogurt brand decides that it wants to support a pro-choice organization, I refuse to buy it. But I'm guessing you'd have a hard time understanding why I'd do that if you can't recognize an absolute moral.

 

guilt: that's what all pro-life publications that are liberally distributed in my area advocate: guilt for even contemplating abortion. smearing guilt liberally, where their views are illiberal and, you said it, absolutist.

 

once you ignore the "individual background" of a woman, and condemn all abortion, i'm not going to infer you're a hypocrite, i'm going to assert the contradiction of your emotive views and your reasoned argument. you may call that whatever you want. I call that self-deception, or moral conviction overriding reason:

 

Every dollar you have raised for pro-life organizations would save more lives if it were raised to feed those currently living, dying of starvation, malnutrition and easily curable disease. Is it about saving as many lives as you can? you've found your cause, I've found mine, which going by all statistics, i can help more people with than you are with yours. I don't think you can argue your cause as being more righteous than mine, more effective, more morally important, more effective or time better spent unless, of course, you assert life in a developed society as more valuable than the lives in less developed society. That is an assertion you indirectly make every time you raise money for a pro-life organization, and not a world-feeding one based on return-on-investment.

 

we can't save everyone, but i'm saving more people than you are, following an even more basic moral tenet: applying yourself where it matters most. My argument does, however, demand that you believe that the value of human life is equal.

[sees_all1]

we can't save everyone, but i'm saving more people than you are, following an even more basic moral tenet: applying yourself where it matters most. My argument does, however, demand that you believe that the value of human life is equal.

I can can show many different people that will tell you that if it wasn't for a sidewalk counselor, they wouldn't be here today. From one campaign, I can point to 2,811 verified individuals that are here on earth only because of the efforts of sidewalk counselors, and their mothers having a change of heart at the last second.

 

Ever hear the story of the starfish on the beach? This is the exact same thing, except these are human's lives. I'm not in a contest with you to see who can make the biggest difference (and if we were, I'd hope you win: I plan on having a huge impact). But this is something that is happening locally which I have to power to influence. I also have this space that I can explain and defend my position.

 

I'm sorry, but what? Your whole post in which I was aiming that at was just you claiming that a removing a dead fetus is not an abortion, when by definition it is, and you saying you're just going to ignore a user.

 

So how is that ignoring a context, when I reply to a relevant part? Or do you just dislike being corrected?

While we might have gotten off the original post (abortion in canada), I thought it was understood we were talking about induced abortions. Guess they weren't, but I'm not going to apologize for misunderstanding them when they didn't bother to correct me, and instead elected to call me names. I already told you I was wrong about that, what more do you want?

 

Also, you claimed to have looked extremely deeply into the pro-life side, have you actually looked as hard into pro-choice? Or is your opinion based on a lack of information?

Let me go over my position one more time.

1. Induced abortion kills a human being.

2. I have respect for human life at all stages, regardless of age, size, shape, mental condition, or method of conception.

Therefore, I am pro-life.

I understand the position that people can't be inconvenienced with a pregnancy. Life, in my opinion, trumps convenience, which is why I believe that abortion is selfish. Did I miss something?

 

 

You are wrong because I say so and I boycott pro choice yogurt

 

Sorry, try again.

 

Don't talk about absolute morals against suffering when you contribute to our consumer culture.

That's hardly what I said, and it isn't the point I'm trying to convey. Your discussion about a "consumer culture" is better suited to a different thread, because its irrelevant in my humble opinion. What is it you want out of society, a brave new world?

What are you doing to stand up against the "consumer culture" ? Or is it because you embrace abortion that its OK that you live in the "consumer culture" ? It seems that the only thing I could do that would make my stance on life acceptable to you would be to go naked into a forest, and live from the trees.

 

 

No, abortion ends a life. An issue that I have already addressed.

 

Wanting to decide what happens to your body is hardly selfish.

 

I don't think anybody will oppose laws telling doctors to 'inform' before they perform an abortion. That is not an issue with whether abortion is ok or not.

What type of life is it? Oh, human? How else are you going to characterize it? When a woman aborts her child, she isn't killing a monkey, she isn't killing a dog, she isn't killing a goldfish. Its human because of the baby's genetic make-up.

And if you "don't think anybody will oppose laws telling doctors to 'inform' before they perform an abortion", you're not very informed. If you take a look at the laws we've tried to enact, you'll find that anything similar to it has always been opposed by Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and NOW.

If you go into an abortion clinic, you'll notice its employees will never, ever, EVER refer to it as a child, a baby. They'll always say its a "ball of cells", "bit of tissue", "Blastocyst", "fetus". Most of those terms are completely incorrect for the time frame being discussed. If you look at pictures of human development, after week 3 the baby looks nothing like a "ball of cells".