Abortion in Canada

[Furah]

I'm just going to play devil's advocate for a minute here. Making abortion illegal can have some disastrous effect. Overpopulation being one of them. Another would be an even faster diminishing rate of resources.

 

Oh sorry I left that part out. I had to tell her her call would be returned after 8am today. And I mean if she's bleeding uncontrollably for 12+ hours? So I was like

"ma'am I'm instructed to tell you you'll receive a call after 8am tomorrow, ok?"

"WHAT?! I can't wait that long! This is your fault! Your fault! I wanted him!"

"Ma'am, if the bleeding gets too bad I would recommend calling 911"

"Whats the point?! Your [bleep]ing fault" -click-

I was gonna say "uhhh you're calling for an abortion center in New Jersey... I'm in a messaging center in Virginia" but that'd just be a douchebag thing to say. And I imagine if the pain was that bad then she wasn't thinking clearly.

What the hell. "I wanted him!" Yet she would have had to consent.

[Saru Inc]

She could of meant she wanted the doctor. She sounded crazy.

[Furah]

She could of meant she wanted the doctor. She sounded crazy.

She could have.

[The Dark Lord]

She could of meant she wanted the doctor. She sounded crazy.

 

 

Well, she was obviously a nutter.

 

------------------------------

 

I'm pretty sure that people are aware of my stance concerning abortion.

 

Generally, I am against it. I have reviewed both sides of the debate, and it's basically an issue that cannot really be supported through moral debate. It's much like the issue of whether or not we should euthanize the mentally insane or those who are terminally ill. On the one hand, it would reduce suffering and population growth, as well as relieving a burden on the taxpayers. However, it also destroys a life unwillingly.

 

As far as aborting a living fetus in a later stage of pregnancy, I would strongly object to such a practice. However, I will have to admit that I place less value on a shapeless clump of cells in early pregnancy. Still, one could easily argue that in both cases, you are destroying a life, and thus it is morally questionable.

 

I'm especially against such practices such as IDX abortion on a live fetus as it is especially barbaric. In my opinion, it's no different from giving birth and smashing the baby against a concrete wall.

 

Here's an explanation of the IDX procedure. It is from a neutral article.

 

Under the Intact D&X method, the largest part of the fetus (the head) is reduced in diameter to allow vaginal passage. According to the American Medical Association, this procedure has four main elements.[3] First, the cervix is dilated. Second, the fetus is positioned for a footling breech. Third, the fetus is partially pulled out, starting with the feet, as far as the neck. Fourth, the brain and material inside the skull is evacuated, so that a dead but otherwise intact fetus can be delivered via the vagina.

 

Usually, preliminary procedures are performed over a period of two to three days, to gradually dilate the cervix using laminaria tents (sticks of seaweed which absorb fluid and swell). Sometimes drugs such as pitocin, a synthetic form of oxytocin, are used to induce labor. Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus's leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the birth canal, which some refer to as 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, leaving only the head still inside the birth canal. An incision is made at the base of the skull, a blunt dissector (such as a Kelly clamp) is inserted into the incision and opened to widen the opening,[4] and then a suction catheter is inserted into the opening. The brain is suctioned out, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the birth canal. The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vacuum aspirated using a cannula

 

 

Likewise, I believe that it is both wrong and irresponsible for a promiscuous woman to get pregnant (especially when she fails to use a contraceptive) and go to her local abortion clinic in order to terminate her pregnancy.

[tortilliachp]

Likewise, I believe that it is both wrong and irresponsible for a promiscuous woman to get pregnant (especially when she fails to use a contraceptive) and go to her local abortion clinic in order to terminate her pregnancy.

this is a very revealing statement: you need two to make a baby, and condoms (responsibility of both) are the only type of contraceptive to give a reasonable level or protection for STD's. Why do you absolve the guy of his responsibility?

[The Dark Lord]

Likewise, I believe that it is both wrong and irresponsible for a promiscuous woman to get pregnant (especially when she fails to use a contraceptive) and go to her local abortion clinic in order to terminate her pregnancy.

this is a very revealing statement: you need two to make a baby, and condoms (responsibility of both) are the only type of contraceptive to give a reasonable level or protection for STD's. Why do you absolve the guy of his responsibility?

 

Nice taking my statement out of context.

 

I don't relieve the guy of his responsibility. I just believe that it's irresponsible for a woman to have sex with a man and not use condoms or birth control, get pregnant, and hit up her local abortion clinic.

[tortilliachp]

Likewise, I believe that it is both wrong and irresponsible for a promiscuous woman to get pregnant (especially when she fails to use a contraceptive) and go to her local abortion clinic in order to terminate her pregnancy.

this is a very revealing statement: you need two to make a baby, and condoms (responsibility of both) are the only type of contraceptive to give a reasonable level or protection for STD's. Why do you absolve the guy of his responsibility?

 

Nice taking my statement out of context.

 

I don't relieve the guy of his responsibility. I just believe that it's irresponsible for a woman to have sex with a man and not use condoms or birth control, get pregnant, and hit up her local abortion clinic.

 

what?!? out of context? i quoted it JUST as presented. It's an overarching attitude, however you present it and you continue the same argument too, which underbuilds my point precisely: you again absolve the guy of responsibility. It's equally irresponsible for a man to have sex with a woman, where he does not use a condom, as she may get pregnant. He is equally responsible for conceiving an unplanned child. when you place the responsibility of birth control on the female, not the couple, you're advocating a patriarchal society as opposed to gender equality!

[The Dark Lord]

Likewise, I believe that it is both wrong and irresponsible for a promiscuous woman to get pregnant (especially when she fails to use a contraceptive) and go to her local abortion clinic in order to terminate her pregnancy.

this is a very revealing statement: you need two to make a baby, and condoms (responsibility of both) are the only type of contraceptive to give a reasonable level or protection for STD's. Why do you absolve the guy of his responsibility?

 

Nice taking my statement out of context.

 

I don't relieve the guy of his responsibility. I just believe that it's irresponsible for a woman to have sex with a man and not use condoms or birth control, get pregnant, and hit up her local abortion clinic.

 

what?!? out of context? i quoted it JUST as presented. It's an overarching attitude, however you present it and you continue the same argument too, which underbuilds my point precisely: you again absolve the guy of responsibility. It's equally irresponsible for a man to have sex with a woman, where he does not use a condom, as she may get pregnant. He is equally responsible for conceiving an unplanned child. when you place the responsibility of birth control on the female, not the couple, you're advocating a patriarchal society as opposed to gender equality!

 

Okay, you are again taking me out of context. Directly quoting me doesn't change that. Get your facts straight. You indeed made assumptions about my character by reading what I wrote, despite me never explicitly stating that. I don't really have time to argue this point endlessly with you, but we both know that you're using this as a tactic to discredit me.

 

I do agree that birth control should be a decision made by the couple. However, in my scenario, it was assumed that the female did not discuss the matter with her partner and instead secretly traveled to an abortion clinic. Despite my views concerning abortion in general, it is indeed very wrong to at the very least not get involved in a mutual discussion about the matter. It's a decision that should be made by both partners since both of them played a part in conception. The male penetrated the woman, and his sperm seeded her uterus. He thus played a significant part in conception, and it would be unfair for him to not know that his partner was about to abort his child.

[tortilliachp]

Likewise, I believe that it is both wrong and irresponsible for a promiscuous woman to get pregnant (especially when she fails to use a contraceptive) and go to her local abortion clinic in order to terminate her pregnancy.

this is a very revealing statement: you need two to make a baby, and condoms (responsibility of both) are the only type of contraceptive to give a reasonable level or protection for STD's. Why do you absolve the guy of his responsibility?

 

Nice taking my statement out of context.

 

I don't relieve the guy of his responsibility. I just believe that it's irresponsible for a woman to have sex with a man and not use condoms or birth control, get pregnant, and hit up her local abortion clinic.

 

what?!? out of context? i quoted it JUST as presented. It's an overarching attitude, however you present it and you continue the same argument too, which underbuilds my point precisely: you again absolve the guy of responsibility. It's equally irresponsible for a man to have sex with a woman, where he does not use a condom, as she may get pregnant. He is equally responsible for conceiving an unplanned child. when you place the responsibility of birth control on the female, not the couple, you're advocating a patriarchal society as opposed to gender equality!

 

Okay, you are again taking me out of context. Directly quoting me doesn't change that. Get your facts straight. You indeed made assumptions about my character by reading what I wrote, despite me never explicitly stating that. I don't really have time to argue this point endlessly with you, but we both know that you're using this as a tactic to discredit me.

 

I do agree that birth control should be a decision made by the couple. However, in my scenario, it was assumed that the female did not discuss the matter with her partner and instead secretly traveled to an abortion clinic. Despite my views concerning abortion in general, it is indeed very wrong to at the very least not get involved in a mutual discussion about the matter. It's a decision that should be made by both partners since both of them played a part in conception. The male penetrated the woman, and his sperm seeded her uterus. He thus played a significant part in conception, and it would be unfair for him to not know that his partner was about to abort his child.

 

( facts straight? I presented exactly what you said as you said it. your "scenario's" assumption that they did not discuss the matter with her partner, and traveled to an abortion clinic in secret exist only in your mind. you did not establish those premises on this topic, at least to my reading. So with out that qualification, your views expressed exactly what i interpreted them as doing, denotatively, although you may personally have meant something else. Accusing me of taking you out of context, when you haven't established the context you thought you had. )

 

I'm glad to see your views are reasonable. that didn't seem to be the case a post back. the use of language really matters, i can't read your mind and you can't read mine. Therefore, we've got to take eachother at word-value, not assumed intention.

 

obviously every abortion we're discussing the moral responsibility or legality of (non-medial issues etc.) could be prevented through good dialog within the couple, unless birth control fails (condoms are only 97-99% secure, even when used correctly).

[The Dark Lord]

Fair enough.

[imbackstinkers]

I'm a pro choice kind of guy ( I hate abortion)

 

 

Think of the poor starving kids all over the world in those 3rd world countries. Living is not a joy for them.. it's a nightmare. Life isn't a bed of roses and if a parent to be can't take care of a child then does that person have the right to subject that child to a life of poverty and hardships. There's also other factors here, rape victims for one, would any of you like to have the child of a rapist?

 

 

 

 

 

I personally wouldn't tell my girlfriend to abort my child if she got pregnant because we can both look after it.

 

It's a touchy subject it has to be said but at the end of the day it's not my choice/ your choice on whether or not someone has an abortion it's the decision of the mother to be and her family to make. As I said before I hate abortions and you can't really make an argument for abortion but I believe it should be up to the individual to decide

[Nenga]

Pro-life is anti abortion.

 

Pro-choice is for it.

 

I really hate saying pro-choice is for it, it's not that I think abortion is the end all solution, I just think the option should be there.

[sees_all1]

Pro-life is anti abortion.

 

Pro-choice is for it.

 

I really hate saying pro-choice is for it, it's not that I think abortion is the end all solution, I just think the option should be there.

 

I'll take the position of being "anti-abortion" if people on the other side acknowledge that their position is "pro-abortion".

If you were really "pro-choice", you'd do everything in your power to make it just as easy to carry to term and give birth as it is to procure an abortion. Funny we never see this from "pro-choice" organizations.

But being pro-life means much more than the abortion debate. Pro-life is against euthanasia, Pro-life is against the death penalty. Pro-life is from conception to natural death. I'm pro-life, I have all these beliefs.

[Iamdan]

Pro life and pro choice are nothing more than political labels.

 

Pro life because everybody is technically 'pro life' so it's easy to say 'omg you're against life?' etc.

 

Pro choice because pro death doesn't sound as friendly.

[magekillr]

Pro choice because pro death doesn't sound as friendly.

 

Erm, what? While I agree that both are political labels, this is ridiculous. I am pro-choice because I think a woman should have the CHOICE and control over her body. If she gets pregnant and wants to keep it, that's fine by me.

 

I prefer anti-woman and pro-equal-rights, personally.

[superson]

Pro-life is anti abortion.

 

Pro-choice is for it.

 

I really hate saying pro-choice is for it, it's not that I think abortion is the end all solution, I just think the option should be there.

 

I'll take the position of being "anti-abortion" if people on the other side acknowledge that their position is "pro-abortion".

If you were really "pro-choice", you'd do everything in your power to make it just as easy to carry to term and give birth as it is to procure an abortion. Funny we never see this from "pro-choice" organizations.

But being pro-life means much more than the abortion debate. Pro-life is against euthanasia, Pro-life is against the death penalty. Pro-life is from conception to natural death. I'm pro-life, I have all these beliefs.

 

Firstly, people who are pro-choice often spend more time and money educating people about sex and preventing unplanned pregnancies than people who are pro-life ever do. I know this doesn't relate specifically to helping carry babies to term, but it somewhat clarifies that they aren't just really into abortions.

 

Secondly, while it is admirable that you take this pro-life stance universally, a majority (this is an educated guess) of people who proclaim to be "pro-life" tend to be in favor of things like the death penalty, tend to be more accepting of war, etc. (I have no idea about euthanasia.) I often get the feeling from a lot of pro-lifers that they really care about you when you're in the womb, but after that they stop caring (until you become eligible for the military, then they care again!)

[magekillr]

In order to be "pro-life," you'd have to be a pacifist, against the death penalty, and against abortion under any circumstance. Still, you'd come to a form of cognitive dissonance somewhere along the line, probably when you have to choose who lives: the mother or the fetus. You can't save both, ya know. And if you choose to "let nature run its course," chances are both will die.

[obfuscator]

In order to be "pro-life," you'd have to be a pacifist, against the death penalty, and against abortion under any circumstance. Still, you'd come to a form of cognitive dissonance somewhere along the line, probably when you have to choose who lives: the mother or the fetus. You can't save both, ya know. And if you choose to "let nature run its course," chances are both will die.

I'm a pacifist, against the death penalty, and against abortion under any circumstance but the below.

 

In the event that a mother or fetus would die, the mother has the choice to either abort the fetus or carry the child to term and die herself.

[magekillr]

In order to be "pro-life," you'd have to be a pacifist, against the death penalty, and against abortion under any circumstance. Still, you'd come to a form of cognitive dissonance somewhere along the line, probably when you have to choose who lives: the mother or the fetus. You can't save both, ya know. And if you choose to "let nature run its course," chances are both will die.

I'm a pacifist, against the death penalty, and against abortion under any circumstance but the below.

 

In the event that a mother or fetus would die, the mother has the choice to either abort the fetus or carry the child to term and die herself.

 

So you were against waging war against Nazi-Germany and Imperial-Japan? Were you against the Korean War? Were you against the Iraq War?

 

A pacifist is against war under any circumstance, even in cases of self-defense. Do you still operate under the notion of being a pacifist? Only the naive in this world do.

 

So you're not pro-life, as you've demonstrated in your last sentence; I also do not believe that you are a pacifist.

[obfuscator]

In order to be "pro-life," you'd have to be a pacifist, against the death penalty, and against abortion under any circumstance. Still, you'd come to a form of cognitive dissonance somewhere along the line, probably when you have to choose who lives: the mother or the fetus. You can't save both, ya know. And if you choose to "let nature run its course," chances are both will die.

I'm a pacifist, against the death penalty, and against abortion under any circumstance but the below.

 

In the event that a mother or fetus would die, the mother has the choice to either abort the fetus or carry the child to term and die herself.

 

So you were against waging war against Nazi-Germany and Imperial-Japan? Were you against the Korean War? Were you against the Iraq War?

 

A pacifist is against war under any circumstance, even in cases of self-defense. Do you still operate under the notion of being a pacifist? Only the naive in this world do.

 

So you're not pro-life, as you've demonstrated in your last sentence; I also do not believe that you are a pacifist.

 

I was against the Iraq war and Korean wars, yes. I was also against the Gulf war, the war in Vietnam, and a significant number of other wars.

 

However, I suppose then I am not a true pacifist, for I see the wars against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan as necessary evils. If there was any way at all to prevent what would have happened without going to war I would have supported that. As you correctly say, only the naive in this world operate under complete pacifism.

 

But I am pro-life in all situations where saving life is remotely possible.

 

You say I demonstrated that I'm not pro-life in my last sentence? Tell me, how is this? In a situation such as that there is no solution that does not result in death. If there was one I would support it.

 

The definition of pro-life is supporting the continuation of life wherever possible. If it isn't possible, then being pro-life is not possible.

 

However, it is possible to be pro-life in regards to abortion as killing fetus's is not strictly necessary.

[sees_all1]

In order to be "pro-life," you'd have to be a pacifist, against the death penalty, and against abortion under any circumstance. Still, you'd come to a form of cognitive dissonance somewhere along the line, probably when you have to choose who lives: the mother or the fetus. You can't save both, ya know. And if you choose to "let nature run its course," chances are both will die.

This is a tricky situation on the surface, and a difficult choice to make, but the answer is very simple.

Abortion does not cure any medical condition or disease. If the mother has cancer, aborting her child will not cure her cancer. So, abortion is always wrong.

 

The decision that matters is treatment of the disease. The mother has cancer; chemotherapy may have detrimental affects to her baby. What does she do? There isn't a wrong answer. The life of the mother and the life of the child are both valued, but the key to the decision is intent. Do everything in your power to save the life of the mother, and if a miscarriage is a result, that's unfortunate. Its unfortunate, but its not the same as intentionally ending the life of the child.

 

Another more common situation is an etopic pregnacy: the baby implants itself in the fallopian tube. This causes the mother extreme pain. The correct procedure is not considered to be an abortion, but the child will probably not survive. If the mother does not miscarriage, and development continues, neither will survive. You can't save them both, but you can save one.

 

 

 

On the topic of war: there is such a thing as a just war. World War II was a just war. The Gulf War was a just war. An underlying theme in these is that people were suffering at the hands of dictators (including genocide). As a nation, you do everything in your power to stop it; if that leads to war, so be it.

[Cowman_133]

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.

 

Ugh. I am disturbed people are thinking this way. Clearly, I am pro-life. I'd really been hoping for Harper to tackle the Abortion issue when he came into power, but it unfortunately never happened. I can only hope for the best in future debates and elections, but I've honestly no clue what will happen next. Alberta and Saskatchewan are very heavy Conservative supporters, winning virtually all the seats in the two provinces for years.

[obfuscator]

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.

 

Ugh. I am disturbed people are thinking this way. Clearly, I am pro-life. I'd really been hoping for Harper to tackle the Abortion issue when he came into power, but it unfortunately never happened. I can only hope for the best in future debates and elections, but I've honestly no clue what will happen next. Alberta and Saskatchewan are very heavy Conservative supporters, winning virtually all the seats in the two provinces for years.

The problem is Ontario is overly liberal and Quebec always goes to the Bloc.

 

As much as I like Harper's stance on certain issues I'm wary of him getting a majority, I don't know exactly what he would do. Overall, I'm dissatisfied with all our parties at the moment.

 

And regardless of being pro-life; I think suggestions that abortion should be completely unregulated are hypocritical. Everything, and I mean everything is regulated by the government in some form, why should abortion be the exception?

[Cowman_133]

Overall, I'm dissatisfied with all our parties at the moment.

 

And regardless of being pro-life; I think suggestions that abortion should be completely unregulated are hypocritical. Everything, and I mean everything is regulated by the government in some form, why should abortion be the exception?

 

Agree with you on all points here.

[Furah]

Likewise, I believe that it is both wrong and irresponsible for a promiscuous woman to get pregnant (especially when she fails to use a contraceptive) and go to her local abortion clinic in order to terminate her pregnancy.

this is a very revealing statement: you need two to make a baby, and condoms (responsibility of both) are the only type of contraceptive to give a reasonable level or protection for STD's. Why do you absolve the guy of his responsibility?

 

Nice taking my statement out of context.

 

I don't relieve the guy of his responsibility. I just believe that it's irresponsible for a woman to have sex with a man and not use condoms or birth control, get pregnant, and hit up her local abortion clinic.

 

what?!? out of context? i quoted it JUST as presented. It's an overarching attitude, however you present it and you continue the same argument too, which underbuilds my point precisely: you again absolve the guy of responsibility. It's equally irresponsible for a man to have sex with a woman, where he does not use a condom, as she may get pregnant. He is equally responsible for conceiving an unplanned child. when you place the responsibility of birth control on the female, not the couple, you're advocating a patriarchal society as opposed to gender equality!

Firstly, there will never be complete gender equality, genetic differences will always assure that, but doesn't make that a bad thing. Secondly, would it be the man's fault if the woman isn't on the pill?