[#-3]

Originally Posted by Azure

Not only that, but we are sticking our heads in the sand if we think that there aren't cultures WITHIN Canada that prioritize gender selection, and the father will force the mother to have an abortion as a result.

This will also become a more common problem with our rise in immigration levels.

Originally Posted by Azure

But it is not a tragedy when a mother decides to get an abortion at 26 weeks and the father has literally no say in the matter? You made it pretty clear in the first post that it sure as hell isn't an easy situation to deal with.

Spoiler!

I don't have all the answers either because no matter what I think it is pretty clear that limiting abortions will not necessarily result in 'less' abortions. I think it is pretty clear what will reduce abortion rates across the board.

I just find it really bizarre that there are people who can't see the common sense in creating a line in the sand without thinking everything will turn into a slippery slope and suddenly abortion will be completely illegal again.

From a completely legal perspective I can make a strong argument that at SOME POINT the fetus is developed enough to be considered a human being. The exact date is always thrown around, but most people will agree that it is sometime before full term is reached. And if we agree on that, from a legal perspective can you not say that the baby will at some point before it is born have the rights that we grant all our humans to not be killed? Especially not be killed by a state sanctioned law?

It is the same reason I adamantly oppose the death penalty. I do not believe the state should have the right to execute its own citizens. No matter what they do I believe we grant them the right to 'live', and I don't think you can make a constitutional argument that the right to live can ever be taken away from them regardless of what heinous acts they preform, i.e. killing someone else.

And in regards to the bodily anatomy argument that Roe vs Wade uses, I asked this in the other thread and I'll ask it here again. If the pregnant mother dies on the hospital bed and the doctors feel the fetus is developed far enough that it would have a chance to survive, can they operate on the mother without permission to try and save the baby? Because wittynickname is saying that unless specifically stated, they cannot just like they cannot take your organs without your permission.

Should they be allowed too? Does the baby have the right to live? Or did the mother dying remove that right as well? Who is deciding there? Because if you are saying the doctor should be decide, well then we are right back to square one.

And there were posts in the other thread by GreenLantern saying the doctor should have the right to decide NOT to preform an abortion if they feel like the mother is doing it for certain reasons (gender, health, father forcing her, etc) which is strange because all of a sudden the rights of the mother don't matter anymore? Suddenly then the baby has a right?

To me the further this debate moves along, the more it becomes a confusing mess because both sides don't want to admit that the most sensible solution involves some serious compromise.

I'm really not the great drum banger for abortions, I don't think there is a point in my life were I would not have offered any help or support I could to remove the need. But you guys are making up problems that don't exist. Gender ID is like 20 weeks at the earliest, if only 600 abortions happened after 21 weeks, were probably down to like 100 by 26 weeks.

Accepting that late term medical abortions need to and will continue to happen, because it is no longer a risk we are willing too put on mothers as a society, this is not some culture polemic raging across our country. You two are realistically talking about 10s of abortions / year.

I would argue the 2 best steps you can take to prevent these 10s of late term abortions each are to remove the stigma from and increase the access to birth control and early abortion.

I think first we protect the rights of 100,000 women and protect the lives of hundreds of women who are in a high risk situation. Once that is accepted, then maybe we can turn the conversation towards that half dozen near viable Canadians who legitimately falling into the parameters you are setting. But while protecting the rights of these six people is the thin wedge to oppressing 100,000 others and killing hundreds women, I don't think its a group we should offer support to.