Canadians in the dark about Abortion laws: Poll

[alltherage]

This is pretty scary stuff IMO. I know this is a major can of worms, but it should make for some discussion.

“The vast majority of Canadians cannot believe that you could have an abortion when you’re eight-and-a-half months pregnant. I don’t think a doctor would do it. But that’s not the point. Legally, that’s allowed, and what we allow legally has a big impact on what our shared societal values are,” she said. “If you don’t understand the facts, you’re in trouble working out what the ethics are.”

Forty-one per cent of those surveyed believe the government regulates the roughly 90,000 abortions that occur each year, only allowing women to have them up until the third month of pregnancy. Fifteen per cent said women could have abortions only within the first three months of pregnancy or if the woman’s life is in danger, she was raped, or the fetus has serious defects. Another 10% said they believe a woman can only have an abortion in Canada if her life is in danger, she was raped or her fetus has serious defects and 13% of respondents weren’t sure about the country’s legal stance.

Link

Personally I am pro-life... but I understand that my values may not be reflected by the majority. I think at the very least there should be more regulation and better guidelines.

For example, after 3 months of pregnancy I think it should only be legal if the woman is raped, if her life is in danger or if the baby/fetus has serious development issues. I'm shocked that someone could have an abortion at 8mos 2weeks. My baby nephew was more pre-mature than that.

Obviously this is an extremely heated debate, and a politician with serious balls would need to address this issue of misinformation, and implimenting new legislations on this issue.

[Resolute 14]

You'll probably get the same results asking who our first Prime Minister was. Ignorance is universal.

I only skimmed the article, but was not beset by an "OMG EVERYBODY PANIC!" viewpoint, which is impressive in itself. Education is good in cases like this.

[zuluking]

I like the "Blame Harper!" part. Good on the media for squeezing that into the dabate. Wasn't easy, but they made it work...

[Knut]

This is not really Alarming.

I think you would be hard-pressed to find a Doctor that would be willing to do Late-term Abortions, even if the law is does explicitly state it is illegal. The malpractice ramifications are immense.

The Medical profession is self-regulated from province to province....

In Alberta the limit is 20 Weeks. Any doctor going over this would be at risk of having their licence removed.

Approved Procedures
5.1 Abortion procedures in approved facilities shall be limited to gestational ages of not greater than twenty (20) weeks / 0 days.

from: http://www.cpsa.ab.ca/Libraries/Pro_...ancy.sflb.ashx

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by zuluking

I like the "Blame Harper!" part. Good on the media for squeezing that into the dabate. Wasn't easy, but they made it work...

Which is strange because the conservatives have been somewhat quietly working on related issues:

One bill introduced last month would make it a criminal offence to "coerce" a woman into having an abortion. The proposed legislation was introduced by pro-life Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge, after a man in Winnipeg tried to force his girlfriend, Roxanne Fernando, into having an abortion in 2007. When she refused, her boyfriend murdered her.
(...)

Another bill, C-484, proposed in 2008, would have made it a criminal offence for someone to attack a woman with the intent of killing her unborn child.

Link

The most mind blowing part of those bills is that some pro-choicers are against them... I have a hard time understanding their position on that.

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by fotze

I've never understood the rape clause? If you are pro-life, the rape thing seems just as arbitrary, the baby didn't rape you and didn't have any choice in the matter. Never seen Precious, you can name the baby Mongo.

I agree entirely. I view myself as pro life. The ramifications I outlined in my OP would be somewhat of a compromise. I understand that people dont share my belief system and dont think I need to force my beleifs on them.

[Ozy_Flame]

I question the development issues arguement (and the opinion of the OP).I am fully pro-choice, but I do take issue with the development issue reason. What defines "development" issues? Is it a baby born with no legs and no arms, blind mute and dumb? or is a child who only has four fingers?I know its an exaggeration, but I should hope anyone using the "development" issues arguement has a well though-out reason as to doing so.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Hesla

This is not really Alarming.

I think you would be hard-pressed to find a Doctor that would be willing to do Late-term Abortions, even if the law is does explicitly state it is illegal. The malpractice ramifications are immense.

The Medical profession is self-regulated from province to province....

In Alberta the limit is 20 Weeks. Any doctor going over this would be at risk of having their licence removed.

Approved Procedures
5.1 Abortion procedures in approved facilities shall be limited to gestational ages of not greater than twenty (20) weeks / 0 days.

from: http://www.cpsa.ab.ca/Libraries/Pro_...ancy.sflb.ashx

This.

Regardless of what is legal, if no doctor will perform it then what does it matter?

[afc wimbledon]

when the pro lifers are protesting outside imperial tobacco or 7/11's I will give them some grudging respect, until then I see it as purely a 'screw over women' thing.

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I question the development issues arguement (and the opinion of the OP).I am fully pro-choice, but I do take issue with the development issue reason. What defines "development" issues? Is it a baby born with no legs and no arms, blind mute and dumb? or is a child who only has four fingers?I know its an exaggeration, but I should hope anyone using the "development" issues arguement has a well though-out reason as to doing so.

Its a grey area for sure. I'm not an expert, and for me this would likely have to be a case-by-case issue... and honestly I would love to engage in a debate on this but I just dont have time while I am at work...

I apologize. Not trying to "cop out" or anything, but I just can't keep up with a debate on this right now.

The only thing I can quickly comment on is that I have a really tough time with the whole "when does human life begin" thing. I beleive that humans should all have the same rights, and I don't beleive that a fetus is less human or not human one day before he/she is born, or one month, or two months... I just dont know where it starts. So to me, life begins earlier than birth... which again, is a can of worms.

This is a very passionate and interesting debate for me and I'd like to go at it but again... limited time. Sorry.

Edit: I would also like to add that this debate and many others rage on in my head and heart. My morals tell my one thing but my brain tells me something else. I am quite conflicted on the "grey areas" of this issue.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I question the development issues arguement (and the opinion of the OP).I am fully pro-choice, but I do take issue with the development issue reason. What defines "development" issues? Is it a baby born with no legs and no arms, blind mute and dumb? or is a child who only has four fingers?I know its an exaggeration, but I should hope anyone using the "development" issues arguement has a well though-out reason as to doing so.

Tough to say. Even tougher to say when the baby is a baby and not just a fetus.

I am personally 100% pro-life as well, but I also realize that my viewpoint cannot be reflected on the rest of society.

An abortion law is tough no matter which way you want to cut it.

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

when the pro lifers are protesting outside imperial tobacco or 7/11's I will give them some grudging respect, until then I see it as purely a 'screw over women' thing.

I understand what you are trying to say here, but pro-lifers respect the life of all humans, and generally beleive that the fetus is a human at conception.

What you appear to be saying is that pro-lifers should target tobacco companies and pressure them to stop selling to people who have made a choice to smoke, albiet there are addiction issues.

What I am trying to say, is yes, I agree with you... but why can't innocent children be protected as well as adults? Especially children who did not make a choice to come in to the world?

I can see where your argument comes from but I do not think it is a good comparison.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by alltherage

I understand what you are trying to say here, but pro-lifers respect the life of all humans, and generally beleive that the fetus is a human at conception.

What you appear to be saying is that pro-lifers should target tobacco companies and pressure them to stop selling to people who have made a choice to smoke, albiet there are addiction issues.

What I am trying to say, is yes, I agree with you... but why can't innocent children be protected as well as adults? Especially children who did not make a choice to come in to the world?

I can see where your argument comes from but I do not think it is a good comparison.

We live in a society that routinely trades lives for conveniance or pleasure, cars kill millions, but we tolerate them, even love them because who wants to shlep their arse to the store in minus 20 without one.

Smokers generally start smoking in their early teens when they don't have the capacity to make appropriate decisions.

We know alcohol kills many hundreds of thousands through abuse or drunk driving, but as most of us are ok with booze we allow those deaths as well.

All of the above though are enjoyed or usefull to men as well as women.

Abortion rights only affect women therefore a male controlled religous hierachy rails against it as it has no affect on their lives.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

We live in a society that routinely trades lives for conveniance or pleasure, cars kill millions, but we tolerate them, even love them because who wants to shlep their arse to the store in minus 20 without one.

Smokers generally start smoking in their early teens when they don't have the capacity to make appropriate decisions.

We know alcohol kills many hundreds of thousands through abuse or drunk driving, but as most of us are ok with booze we allow those deaths as well.

All of the above though are enjoyed or usefull to men as well as women.

Abortion only affect women therefore a male controlled religous hierachy rails against it.

Wow! Didn't see that one coming. I think your logic train derailed.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

when the pro lifers are protesting outside imperial tobacco or 7/11's I will give them some grudging respect, until then I see it as purely a 'screw over women' thing.

Why?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Why?

tobacco kills, surely if every life is sacred then tobacco, booze, fast cars et all should be banned?

There is no logic to objecting when women make choices of convienience to end a life when we as a society end far more lives because we like booze smokes driving etc.

of course if you ban smoking, booze, cars mens choices are impacted, banning abortion only impacts womens choices.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

tobacco kills, surely if every life is sacred then tobacco, booze, fast cars et all should be banned?

Illogical. Abortion protestors should protest abortion, than they would be abortion protestors. You see my point?

Moral busybodies protest fast food and cigarettes. Abortion is a whole other cup of tea, as you English would say.

[mykalberta]

It doesnt matter when it happens, if its legal they should allow it up to 24 hours prior to birth.

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

All of the above though are enjoyed or usefull to men as well as women.

Abortion rights only affect women therefore a male controlled religous hierachy rails against it as it has no affect on their lives.

This is where the disagreement is. You believe the fetus/baby has no rights. Pro-lifers believe the fetus/baby is human with rights.

The way pro-lifers see it, Abortion infringes on the rights of the child/fetus, and in many cases the rights of the father of the child/fetus.

In a car accident, usually someone is at fault, and generally if you hit and kill someone you get charged with manslaughter.

With Tobacco, as a conciouse and self-guided human being, you choose to smoke.

With Alcohol, you make a choice to drink it.

With Abortion, the baby chooses nothing. The baby is an innocent by stander.

Are either of you right or wrong? I know which way I lean... but that's my opinion.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

tobacco kills, surely if every life is sacred then tobacco, booze, fast cars et all should be banned?

I think that relates more to the issue of rational choice of persons harming themselves versus fetuses who can't make decisions for themselves. Smoking and abortion are, IMO, two different debates.