Abortion in Canada

[magekillr]

Firstly, there will never be complete gender equality, genetic differences will always assure that, but doesn't make that a bad thing.

 

Please. There can be gender equality, and people who say there can't because of genetic differences are only standing in the way.

 

Secondly, would it be the man's fault if the woman isn't on the pill?

 

The pill is not 100%.

 

And more on to the point of what I was talking about earlier, perfect example of it just happening two days ago:

 

Sister Margaret McBride was forced to make a decision between her faith and a woman's life last year, when a 27-year-old mother of four rushed into St. Joseph's Hospital in Phoenix only 11 weeks pregnant.

 

"I think [McBride] prayed and prayed and I'm sure that this weighed on her like a ton of bricks. This was not an easy decision for her," says her long-time friend Mary Jo Macdonald.

 

As a key member of the hospital's ethics board, McBride gathered with doctors in November of 2009 to discuss the young woman's fate.

 

The mother was suffering from pulmonary hypertension, an illness the doctors believed would likely kill her and, as a result, her unborn child, if she did not abort the pregnancy.

 

In the end, McBride chose to save the young woman's life by agreeing to authorize an emergency abortion, a decision that has now forced her out of a job and the Catholic Church.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/church-excommunicates-nun-authorized-emergency-abortion-save-mothers/story?id=10799745&cid=yahoo_pitchlist

[sees_all1]

And more on to the point of what I was talking about earlier, perfect example of it just happening two days ago:

 

Sister Margaret McBride was forced to make a decision between her faith and a woman's life last year, when a 27-year-old mother of four rushed into St. Joseph's Hospital in Phoenix only 11 weeks pregnant.

 

"I think [McBride] prayed and prayed and I'm sure that this weighed on her like a ton of bricks. This was not an easy decision for her," says her long-time friend Mary Jo Macdonald.

 

As a key member of the hospital's ethics board, McBride gathered with doctors in November of 2009 to discuss the young woman's fate.

 

The mother was suffering from pulmonary hypertension, an illness the doctors believed would likely kill her and, as a result, her unborn child, if she did not abort the pregnancy.

 

In the end, McBride chose to save the young woman's life by agreeing to authorize an emergency abortion, a decision that has now forced her out of a job and the Catholic Church.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/church-excommunicates-nun-authorized-emergency-abortion-save-mothers/story?id=10799745&cid=yahoo_pitchlist

Her pregnancy did not cause her pulmonary hypertension, and aborting her child did not cure her pulmonary hypertension.

[magekillr]

Are you arguing that she should not have had the abortion, killing both her and her fetus? I'm not attempting a straw man, but you're not addressing the issue: the abortion saved her life, and by your standards, both would be killed.

 

Interesting article from Time:

 

It should not be too surprising that in Brazil, the country with the largest number of Roman Catholics (73% of the populace, or about 140 million), abortion is illegal except in cases of rape, when the mother's life is in danger or when the fetus has severe genetic abnormalities. Indeed, the ban on abortion is an immovable plank in the campaign platforms of the two main candidates in Brazil's upcoming presidential election. Yet a recent study revealed that 1 in 5 Brazilian women of child-bearing age has terminated a pregnancy, and statistics by the Health Ministry show that 200,000 women each year are hospitalized because of complications arising from unsafe abortions.

 

The study has shocked doctors, who were surprised at just how common the illegal procedures are. "I think the big conclusion we draw from this is that the woman who has an abortion is a typical Brazilian woman," says Marcelo Medeiros, the economist and sociologist who coordinated the government-funded study. "She could be your cousin, your mother, your sister or your neighbor. All the evidence shows this is a serious problem and one that is not being debated openly."

 

Outgoing President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who says he is personally against abortion, is on the record calling for the state to discuss it as a public-health, rather than as a moral, issue. The popular President, however, has done little to foster any wider debate on legalizing the procedure, and his government has not made reducing maternal mortality — which is tied to the unsafe abortions — one of its health goals. The two leading candidates to replace him in October's presidential election have adopted a similar stance and both say they have no plans to change the current law. Only Marina Silva of Green Party, the outsider in the race, has said she supports a liberalization of current rules surrounding abortion. But even Silva has not said that she is advocating outright legalization.

 

More here: Time Article

[AirWales]

I guess it depends on the situation. I can't blame woman in third world countries for having an abortion if they have little or no knowledge about contraception but I think there are a lot of unnessecary abortions in the western world because people are just too careless.

[Zilla]

I honestly believe there is no such thing as right or wrong choices, only different options that have different outcomes. If a woman decides to use abortion, then potential life is loss, it could have had potential but that is now obsolete. A woman could give birth to the child which would open more options, which all have different outcomes. Either option is fine. The fetus could have had potential, (which is more options that could lead to different things, which some could find positive or negative.) but it was destroyed so therefore it didn't.

 

I am oriented toward the pro-choice option, you are given the ability to choice a variety of options, you might choose one which you might regret, you might choose one that you are pleased with. For everyone, there are choices you do not have access to, while somebody in the same situation has the extra options.

[Orpheus]

I honestly believe there is no such thing as right or wrong choices, only different options that have different outcomes. If a woman decides to use abortion, then potential life is loss, it could have had potential but that is now obsolete. A woman could give birth to the child which would open more options, which all have different outcomes. Either option is fine. The fetus could have had potential, (which is more options that could lead to different things, which some could find positive or negative.) but it was destroyed so therefore it didn't.

 

I am oriented toward the pro-choice option, you are given the ability to choice a variety of options, you might choose one which you might regret, you might choose one that you are pleased with. For everyone, there are choices you do not have access to, while somebody in the same situation has the extra options.

 

Regarding the child having different outcomes, there's no way to tell for certain how the baby will turn out either way. It could grow up to be the next Einstein or a potential murderer. A combination of nature and nurture can help with pushing the kid towards "good" but still. Either way, the choice should ultimately be left with the mother and no one else.

[sees_all1]

Are you arguing that she should not have had the abortion, killing both her and her fetus? I'm not attempting a straw man, but you're not addressing the issue: the abortion saved her life, and by your standards, both would be killed.

 

From the research I've done, the condition she had is very rare, and is genetic - meaning that she's lived with it all of her life. She's already had four children; which is to say that giving birth has not killed her. Cutting through the spin of the article you posted, and based on the very tiny amount of information given about this case, it is impossible to know what the absolute *correct* decision should have been. I wasn't on the panel that had all the information to help her make the decision. What I do know is that the nun that recommended abortion has been excommunicated (which is the only reason this is *newsworthy*), because the Catholic Church is very clear in its teachings - the ends never justify the means. An editorial was posted on a Catholic news site which outlined another option - wait another two to three months with the mother in the hospital in a minimum stress environment, then deliver via emergency cesaren section. A baby delivered at six months has about a 50% chance of survival, versus the near zero rate for abortion.

 

What I do know is that she wasn't facing certain death; this wasn't the first high risk pregnancy and it won't be the last.

 

I believe the doctors were covering their asses when they made the recommendation. But that's my opinion.

 

 

@Roflzilla -

It isn't a *potential* life. By any scientific definition, the baby is alive.

 

 

I found an interesting article, relating to stress in pregnancy and miscarriages:

http://news.suite101.com/article.cfm/miscarriages-may-have-a-911-link-study-reveals-a240840

An event like 9/11 that didn't *directly* affect pregnant women could be linked to a rise in miscarriages of male children.

[Giordano]

I guess it depends on the situation. I can't blame woman in third world countries for having an abortion if they have little or no knowledge about contraception but I think there are a lot of unnessecary abortions in the western world because people are just too careless.

Brazil is not a third world country. Its not huts in the Amazon, they know what a condom is. There is no such thing as a third world countries just poor or rich people and its varying degrees. Not all non-Americans and non-Europeans are hunter-gatherering cavemen.

[Spiffeh]

I guess it depends on the situation. I can't blame woman in third world countries for having an abortion if they have little or no knowledge about contraception but I think there are a lot of unnessecary abortions in the western world because people are just too careless.

 

But why is peoples carelessness any of your business? It affects you in no way.

[Giordano]

I guess it depends on the situation. I can't blame woman in third world countries for having an abortion if they have little or no knowledge about contraception but I think there are a lot of unnessecary abortions in the western world because people are just too careless.

 

But why is peoples carelessness any of your business? It affects you in no way.

One could argue it leads to a social spreading of ideas that causes society to be corrupt and immoral.

 

Like a Puritan. Same people who committed the Salem Witch trials.

[warren211]

Although I am a devout Catholic, I'm going to attempt to express my opinion in a non-religious way here (because I've learned that preaching in a debate does little to further the argument).

 

When a baby is conceived, it is now a human with its own set of natural rights. Is that unreasonable? We defend so wholeheartedly the right of every person to speak their opinion freely, and I don't think an unborn child is any different (don't worry, I'll defend this proposal in a minute). And I think one of these fundamental rights is the right to be alive for as long as it doesn't intrude on another's right to live. Just because it's not a functioning human at conception, does that mean it's right to live is nothing? Many will respond "it never had the right to live because it never got the chance to live". I'm going to try to respond using an analogy that some of you may dismiss as irrelevant but I think has some truth in it. Let's pretend the whole world supports the 1st and 2nd amendments for civilians under the US constitution. If a person is not physically capable of holding a gun, does that mean their right to bear arms is dismissed? Or how about if someone is incapable of expressing their opinions on a certain issue (let's say they're very ill or something), do they now lose the right to free speech just because they cannot immediately use it? In that light, should someone lose their right to live just because they don't have the ability to live outside the uterus yet?

 

Now, this argument rests on two proposals: 1) A person has the right to live above all other natural rights. 2)A human is in fact living at the moment at conception, and therefore has rights like everyone else.

To defend these assumptions, I'd like to ask yet more questions. Why is it that when a mother kills a baby in the womb for no good reason (even once it begins to take human shape) people would gladly defend the mother's right to a legal abortion, yet once the baby is outside the womb it is now illegal to kill it and the mother would be looked upon as a twisted freak and a criminal if she murdered the child? I think the law should be consistent in defending a person's right to live from the start of conception. In a difference of a few months of gestation, the killing of a baby changes from a legal abortion to a crime. Where do we draw the line for this? Is there a certain point in a fetus's gestation period where it changes from nonhuman to human? And then comes the obvious question: if it's not a human yet, what is it?

 

The final argument for the mother would be "her body, her decision". But if that body is now carrying another body with its own rights, is it really her decision? Cases of rape and threats to the mother's life are completely different (I'm not sure where I stand on rape situations just yet), but when the mother simply kills the baby because it's not wanted, I find that a downright crime because that baby IS a human and it has it's right to live just like everyone else does. And just because it can't defend these crucial traits, that doesn't mean they don't exist.

[Faux]

it's so easy for us to decide what rights women should have when we will never go through anything close to what pregnancy is to women

[warren211]

it's so easy for us to decide what rights women should have when we will never go through anything close to what pregnancy is to women

 

Nor will we know how the baby involved in the terminated pregnancy feels because it never got a chance to voice its opinion. Its only voice is in the pro-life movement, so it's necessary for us to speak about the rights and obligations of its mother to defend the voiceless fetus. Is pregnancy easy? Hell no. I respect all mothers who are able to go through that kind of pain, because it is required if we want humanity to go on. But once the baby is conceived, is it an obligation for the mother to make this sacrifice to respect the baby's rights? That's where we have to speak up.

[Faux]

meh. i still think women should have the freedom to decide whether or not they continue pregnancy.

 

in the same breadth of "rights" logic, nothing states fetuses should supersede a woman's right, the woman who is an already indesputable human being with full protected rights.

[Giordano]

So its basically Slavery vs. Life.

 

...of a thing that even ants are sophicated than it. My minds been set.

[Romy]

it's so easy for us to decide what rights women should have when we will never go through anything close to what pregnancy is to women

 

Nor will we know how the baby involved in the terminated pregnancy feels because it never got a chance to voice its opinion. Its only voice is in the pro-life movement, so it's necessary for us to speak about the rights and obligations of its mother to defend the voiceless fetus. Is pregnancy easy? Hell no. I respect all mothers who are able to go through that kind of pain, because it is required if we want humanity to go on. But once the baby is conceived, is it an obligation for the mother to make this sacrifice to respect the baby's rights? That's where we have to speak up.

 

What if having the baby will result in making 3 people's lives unbareable? (The father, the son baby, and the holy spirit mother.)

[obfuscator]

it's so easy for us to decide what rights women should have when we will never go through anything close to what pregnancy is to women

 

Nor will we know how the baby involved in the terminated pregnancy feels because it never got a chance to voice its opinion. Its only voice is in the pro-life movement, so it's necessary for us to speak about the rights and obligations of its mother to defend the voiceless fetus. Is pregnancy easy? Hell no. I respect all mothers who are able to go through that kind of pain, because it is required if we want humanity to go on. But once the baby is conceived, is it an obligation for the mother to make this sacrifice to respect the baby's rights? That's where we have to speak up.

 

What if having the baby will result in making 3 people's lives unbareable? (The father, the son baby, and the holy spirit mother.)

 

Unbearable? What?

 

A human being, an innocent human being, makes your life "unbearable"?

 

People who steal your possessions, kill your family members, and destroy your home are unbearable. Not an innocent child, sorry.

[Romy]

it's so easy for us to decide what rights women should have when we will never go through anything close to what pregnancy is to women

 

Nor will we know how the baby involved in the terminated pregnancy feels because it never got a chance to voice its opinion. Its only voice is in the pro-life movement, so it's necessary for us to speak about the rights and obligations of its mother to defend the voiceless fetus. Is pregnancy easy? Hell no. I respect all mothers who are able to go through that kind of pain, because it is required if we want humanity to go on. But once the baby is conceived, is it an obligation for the mother to make this sacrifice to respect the baby's rights? That's where we have to speak up.

 

What if having the baby will result in making 3 people's lives unbareable? (The father, the son baby, and the holy spirit mother.)

 

Unbearable? What?

 

A human being, an innocent human being, makes your life "unbearable"?

 

People who steal your possessions, kill your family members, and destroy your home are unbearable. Not an innocent child, sorry.

 

An innocent child of 2 16-year olds with no way to supply for him, can ruin all 3's lives. Things like going to college are immediately not an option anymore. The family will literally struggle to survive, the kid will never get to live the life any normal parent wishes for their kids' lives - it'll be full of poorness, commonly hatred, bare minimum of supplying the needs of all 3, commonly force the parents to take responsibility they're definitely not ready to take, commonly take away the plans any of the parents had for their lives, the kid will probably not be able to experience material happiness, be properly educated, have mature parents that can actually handle a child.... the list goes on almost endlessly.

 

And that's as opposed to letting 2 actually live a life.

[obfuscator]

 

An innocent child of 2 16-year olds with no way to supply for him, can ruin all 3's lives. Things like going to college are immediately not an option anymore. The family will literally struggle to survive, the kid will never get to live the life any normal parent wishes for their kids' lives - it'll be full of poorness, commonly hatred, bare minimum of supplying the needs of all 3, commonly force the parents to take responsibility they're definitely not ready to take, commonly take away the plans any of the parents had for their lives, the kid will probably not be able to experience material happiness, be properly educated, have mature parents that can actually handle a child.... the list goes on almost endlessly.

 

And that's as opposed to letting 2 actually live a life.

 

Yeah, that sucks.

 

I personally know several people of who have kids young, very young, and these kids have turned out to be caring, mature, and respectful people.

But that doesn't matter.

 

No matter what the situation, no matter what the cost, we do not have the right to take a life to fix a problem.

[Giordano]

Yes we do.

[obfuscator]

Yes we do.

Oh ok, so when someone does that to you'll agree with it.

[Giordano]

If I was something that couldn't think, yeah I wouldn't mind. (No pun intended)

[obfuscator]

If I was something that couldn't think, yeah I wouldn't mind. (No pun intended)

So if you were mentally challenged, or perhaps in a coma, it would be ok to kill you off because you're an inconvenience?

[tortilliachp]

If I was something that couldn't think, yeah I wouldn't mind. (No pun intended)

So if you were mentally challenged, or perhaps in a coma, it would be ok to kill you off because you're an inconvenience?

 

being without brain activity in a coma (being in a vegetative state) would for me be worse than death itself: there would be no purpose to my existence, other than existing. The free-will argument of almost all religions and life stances agrees with me.

 

being mentally challenged is too far a stretch for me to compare. I don't know if i'm okay with "killing" children, but the vegetatively comatose state is for me unlivable, and undignified for anyone to live with / through.

[Faux]

So its basically Slavery vs. Life.

 

...of a thing that even ants are sophicated than it. My minds been set.

lol @ "my minds been set"

 

wait til you start getting laid.