Being impregnated during a rape is just like getting a flat tire

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Yasa

I read a study somewhere saying women were at higher risk for getting pregnant than men. I can't find the data, so you'll have to take my word for it.

That's great, it's also great that you didn't care to take a shot at discussing the actual issues.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Ark2

At any rate, your argument about this being discriminatory is simply wrong. There would be no law stating that women have to pay additional premiums for abortion coverage, they would simply have the option to should they wish to have such coverage. Additionally, there is nothing to suggest that men couldn't pay the same premiums and have it cover their spouse/daughter(s). Nothing discriminatory about that.

Supreme Court opinions have indicated that to not be the case, at least for certain members of the court.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

So then, taking a pill that prevents implementation isn't a form of abortion? Again just being clear. Because I've encountered people who believe Plan B is as 'evil' as the Kensington Clinic.

Catholics and some other Christians are against anything that inhibits pro-creation. They certainly wouldn't like the morning after pill.

Other Christians reject the way they see the morning after pill as being used. They suppose women who wouldn't engage in premarital sex normally might be overcome by temptation because of the avaibility of the pill over the counter. They also believe that the risks involved are being under-reported.

I think that the risks of the morning after pill make it only appropriate in extreme cases. Hopefully the health care professionals do their job expressing this through sex ed. But, back to your question I have no problem with the responsible use of the morning after pill. My wife used birth control pills when we were first married which basically accomplished the same thing: It caused the fertilized egg not to be attached to the uterus.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by valo403

Supreme Court opinions have indicated that to not be the case, at least for certain members of the court.

Got any links? I'm interested to hear how they think that something that is not mandatory for one gender and readily available for both genders is in any way, shape or form discriminatory.

Coming back to the statistical angle again, if men are more likely to get in a car accident, which is justification for them paying higher auto insurance premiums, then women being statistically more likely to get pregnant should be justification for them having to pay higher premiums. I'm sure you will disagree, but I guess this is just a matter of some levels of sexism being acceptable.

[Sliver]

Eek, I really don't want to get into a debate with you as you'll wipe the floor with me.

Originally Posted by photon

Human skin cells do.

I don't get what you mean here - like if you take some of my skin, you're not going to be able to grow a human. A fertilized egg will grow into a human. There's a difference between what the future holds for a fertilized egg and what the future holds for random skin cells or bacteria.

Originally Posted by photon

I don't see the practical difference between the body naturally aborting a pregnancy which happens a lot without anyone even noticing, taking a pill that restricts implanting, removing a cluster of cells that hasn't differentiated into anything other than non-sentient cells, and using a condom to stop the meeting of egg/sperm in the first place.

I think there's a difference. Especially the condom example - preventing a pregnancy and aborting a pregnancy are an easy differentiation to me.

Originally Posted by photon

That's where Catholics and the like get their prohibition on contraception; something is interfering with the natural process of fertilization.

Again, preventing pregnancy and aborting a pregnancy are clearly different in my view.

Originally Posted by photon

It's the beginning of human life, but it's still just a single cell at that point. Is removing one cell immoral?

No removing one cell isn't immoral, but a fertilized egg is more complicated because of the potential it has.

Originally Posted by photon

For me because most of the pro-life arguments I've encountered aren't good arguments at all, just good sounding ones. And the ones that are good arguments are worth considering, but haven't been enough to change my mind.

Well, I trust your judgement a lot so if I have time I'll go back and read Calgaryborn's position to see if they are good arguments to me on a second read, or just good sounding ones as you said.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Got any links? I'm interested to hear how they think that something that is not mandatory for one gender and readily available for both genders is in any way, shape or form discriminatory.

Coming back to the statistical angle again, if men are more likely to get in a car accident, which is justification for them paying higher auto insurance premiums, then women being statistically more likely to get pregnant should be justification for them having to pay higher premiums. I'm sure you will disagree, but I guess this is just a matter of some levels of sexism being acceptable.

I didn't read the entire piece, but these sections show the argument and the way I look at the issue. Again, might not be a winner, but it's how I tend to look at it for the time being.

I guess the key is the providing a benefit v. imposing a burden argument, I see it as the latter.

In Garrahy, the Rhode Island District Court recognized that while the public funding cases may stand for the proposition that the state is not “constitutionally compelled to pay to remove financial burdens it did not impose, the cases clearly gave no license to the converse, the idea that government is free to create financial obstacles to abortion.”225 The court found that the statute, which imposed an additional fee on women who desired insurance coverage for abortion, was “precisely the sort of affirmative ‘obstacle’ which Maher and Harris stated the government was prohibited from creating.”226 The fact that the statute was placing a new burden on access to abortion in the context of women’s private funding decisions led the court to invalidate the statute. The Third Circuit invalidated a similar Pennsylvania statute using the same rationale.227 Any federal-level restriction on private insurance coverage of abortion should similarly be invalid.

The Supreme Court has explicitly recognized that scrutiny of sex discrimination under Title VII is heightened when an employer has “imposed on women a substantial burden that men need not suffer” as compared to merely refusing to extend to women “a benefit that men cannot and do not receive.”228 If the decision to provide funding for abortion is framed not as a question of providing a benefit for women, but rather as taking a benefit away and thereby imposing a burden on women that is not suffered by men, the argument for applying heightened Equal Protection scrutiny to both private and public funding decisions is further strengthened.

Mandating that insurance providers cannot provide coverage for abortion in their health plans, or restricting coverage in any way, ignores the emerging recognition of sex equality arguments for reproductive rights. Restrictions on coverage in a national health insurance scheme will affect all women as a class, limit the reach of private insurance expenditures, and impose new burdens on women who currently receive abortion coverage.

www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlg/vol331/357-402.pdf

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

Maybe, but polls seem to indicate that unrestricted is the desire of the majority.

I don't know that Canadians are as supportive of unrestricted as you might think. Check out this poll by Sun news:

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews...12-075610.html

I would think no government would act upon legistation that restricted abortion without at least 70% of Canadians supporting it. That's about another 10% of the population with about 20% undecided.

That might be hard to come by but, with the creation of the Sun news network the pro-abortion crowd no longer has a monopoly on the news outlets.

Until now it was very easy to paint the pro life crowd as insignificant and only religious zealots. For instance I didn't know that the pro life rally in Ottawa is the largest single demonstration on the hill and has been for years. I also wasn't aware that most of Europe still affords some protection for the unborn whereas Canada does not.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I don't get what you mean here - like if you take some of my skin, you're not going to be able to grow a human. A fertilized egg will grow into a human. There's a difference between what the future holds for a fertilized egg and what the future holds for random skin cells or bacteria.

You can though, at least in principle. It might require extra effort from some technology, but we already do that with artificial insemination, this would just be one extra step of either convincing the skin cell that it's a different kind of cell, or merging it with a fertilized egg that has had its DNA removed, or whatever.

A skin cell has the DNA to produce a full human, so the potential is still there.

Originally Posted by Sliver

I think there's a difference. Especially the condom example - preventing a pregnancy and aborting a pregnancy are an easy differentiation to me.

But what is the difference? The end result is the same (no child), the amount of harm done is the same, I can't think of a way to measure it where there is a difference, other than future potential, but I don't think the future potential argument works for the same reason you don't think it works (since you agree that contraception is ok).

Originally Posted by Sliver

No removing one cell isn't immoral, but a fertilized egg is more complicated because of the potential it has.

Maybe more complicated, but I don't see how unfulfilled potential is immoral.

Originally Posted by Sliver

Well, I trust your judgement a lot so if I have time I'll go back and read Calgaryborn's position to see if they are good arguments to me on a second read, or just good sounding ones as you said.

I was thinking more of the common arguments made by the pro-life group in general, not Calgaryborn's arguments specifically (though Calgaryborn's arguments ultimately are based on if they align with his interpretation of the Bible, nothing more or less, so all other arguments are merely arguments of convenience.. that is arguments that support a desired conclusion, rather than arguments that have merit on their own)

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I don't know that Canadians are as supportive of unrestricted as you might think. Check out this poll by Sun news:

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews...12-075610.html

I would think no government would act upon legistation that restricted abortion without at least 70% of Canadians supporting it. That's about another 10% of the population with about 20% undecided.

Not sure how you got that conclusion, the question was:

When do you believe human life should be legally protected?

59% percent had some kind of support, not 70%:

From conception - 27%
After 3 months of pregnancy - 21%
After 6 months of pregnancy - 11%

http://abacusdata.ca/wp-content/uplo...ay-11-2011.pdf

I had a different poll in mind:

http://www.angus-reid.com/wp-content...0_Abortion.pdf

Abortion should be permitted in all cases - 46%
Abortion should be permitted, but subject to greater restrictions than now - 19%
Abortion should be permitted only in cases such as rape, incest and to save the woman's life - 22%
Abortion should only be permitted to save the woman’s life - 7%
Unsure - 6%

As always the wording of the question itself is going to influence the results somewhat.

I think this part of the discussion is moot for Canada anyway as I don't think there's any political will to visit this issue.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

Not sure how you got that conclusion, the question was:

When do you believe human life should be legally protected?

59% percent had some kind of support, not 70%:

From conception - 27%
After 3 months of pregnancy - 21%
After 6 months of pregnancy - 11%

http://abacusdata.ca/wp-content/uplo...ay-11-2011.pdf

I had a different poll in mind:

http://www.angus-reid.com/wp-content...0_Abortion.pdf

Abortion should be permitted in all cases - 46%
Abortion should be permitted, but subject to greater restrictions than now - 19%
Abortion should be permitted only in cases such as rape, incest and to save the woman's life - 22%
Abortion should only be permitted to save the woman’s life - 7%
Unsure - 6%

As always the wording of the question itself is going to influence the results somewhat.

I think this part of the discussion is moot for Canada anyway as I don't think there's any political will to visit this issue.

59% of Canadians right now believe there should be some protection for the unborn at 6 months.

I agree with you that there is no political will to change things today. My thinking is a 10%(11%) rise to 70% would push the issue to a point where some brave politician might draft some legistation.

It is interesting that your poll from 2008 asked questions based on the rights of the mother. The 2011 poll asked questions based on when to protect the unborn child. That should tell us that the person who wins the debate will be the one who controls the conversation.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

59% of Canadians right now believe there should be some protection for the unborn at 6 months.

Ah sorry, I thought you were saying 70% should, not that 70% would be a point where the government would act or consider acting.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

It is interesting that your poll from 2008 asked questions based on the rights of the mother.

What? Here's the question: "What is your personal feeling about abortion?". How in any way does that frame the question in terms of rights of anyone, mother or child? That seems to be about as unbiased a question as you could formulate.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

That should tell us that the person who wins the debate will be the one who controls the conversation.

That's because people's beliefs can be manipulated, and why public opinion is a poor way of deciding such things.

Just because a public poll showed 95% of people thought slavery was ok and should be brought back doesn't mean that that's right.

[VladtheImpaler]

I doubt it's wise to dip my toe into this debate, which is seemingly never-ending, but I just wanted to throw some support Sliver's way...
Even though we are very, very liberal when it comes to social issues, Mrs. Impaler and I have done a complete 180% on the abortion issue, as a result of having a child...

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by photon

You can though, at least in principle. It might require extra effort from some technology, but we already do that with artificial insemination, this would just be one extra step of either convincing the skin cell that it's a different kind of cell, or merging it with a fertilized egg that has had its DNA removed, or whatever.

A skin cell has the DNA to produce a full human, so the potential is still there.

No, a skin cell doesn't have the same potential as a fertilized egg. After you've modified the skin cell to turn it into an embryo and implanted that into a womb, sure.

Originally Posted by photon

But what is the difference? The end result is the same (no child), the amount of harm done is the same, I can't think of a way to measure it where there is a difference, other than future potential, but I don't think the future potential argument works for the same reason you don't think it works (since you agree that contraception is ok).

You've harmed the potential the fertilized egg had when you abort it. You've maybe harmed the potential the sperm had to fertilize an egg when you introduce a condom, but that's different as the sperm - when left alone - wouldn't turn into a human.

Originally Posted by photon

Maybe more complicated, but I don't see how unfulfilled potential is immoral.

Unfulfilled potential in general isn't immoral. I think actively snuffing out the potential of a fertilized egg to turn into a human is more of a grey area.

Originally Posted by photon

I was thinking more of the common arguments made by the pro-life group in general, not Calgaryborn's arguments specifically (though Calgaryborn's arguments ultimately are based on if they align with his interpretation of the Bible, nothing more or less, so all other arguments are merely arguments of convenience.. that is arguments that support a desired conclusion, rather than arguments that have merit on their own)

Yes, there is no way somebody with Calgaryborn's faith would be pro-choice and I can see how he comes at this with his mind made up. As an atheist/areligious person from the day I was born I don't have that bias yet I still think some of the pro-life arguments are valid. Primarily the question of when does a life start. Calgaryborn said he believes that happens when the embryo implants into the wall of the uterus. That makes a degree of sense to me completely independent of what the bible or any church says.

Still, if I put myself into my 16-24 year-old self's shoes and had a pregnant girlfriend I'm pretty sure I would be very pro-choice.

[photon]

But modifying a skin cell to make it able to grow is no different than modifying a gamete to make it able to grow. I can see where the distinction you are making is, I just don't think the distinction is important for a reason that's meaningful.

I guess I don't see the question of when life starts and what potential exists particularly meaningful in this context, sure life has started and there is potential but there's nothing magical about life in and of itself, so drawing the line there to me just seems arbitrary.

To me it makes more sense pragmatically in terms of effects, like what benefits, what harms, etc.

[Sliver]

Well, I'll remain in the uncomfortable position of uncertainty on this for the time being. I'm leaning toward renouncing my pro-choice stance, but I don't want to decide absolutely right now.

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Yes, there is no way somebody with Calgaryborn's faith would be pro-choice and I can see how he comes at this with his mind made up. As an atheist/areligious person from the day I was born I don't have that bias yet I still think some of the pro-life arguments are valid. Primarily the question of when does a life start. Calgaryborn said he believes that happens when the embryo implants into the wall of the uterus. That makes a degree of sense to me completely independent of what the bible or any church says.

Still, if I put myself into my 16-24 year-old self's shoes and had a pregnant girlfriend I'm pretty sure I would be very pro-choice.

I'm in the exact same boat as you, and it's like a troubling crossroad where I don't know where the answers are.

I think I'm pro-life and don't like abortion or the killing of any human or fetus, but if my girlfriend got pregnant right now I'd definitely be thinking abortion even if it went against my beliefs, and I'd like that choice to be up to me.

Sounds hypocritical, but it's not a easy situation to be in.

[Galakanokis]

Originally Posted by puckluck

I'm in the exact same boat as you, and it's like a troubling crossroad where I don't know where the answers are.

I think I'm pro-life and don't like abortion or the killing of any human or fetus, but if my girlfriend got pregnant right now I'd definitely be thinking abortion even if it went against my beliefs, and I'd like that choice to be up to me.

Sounds hypocritical, but it's not a easy situation to be in.

I think everyone is pretty much pro life. I don't think anyone (or hopefully very few anyways) would actively go out and get pregnant for the sole purpose of having an abortion. But, if by chance they do get pregnant by accident the choice should be up to the parties involved with no outside influence or threats. As you stated quite simply, "I'd like that choice to be up to me." Makes too much sense it seems.

I understand what is being said about people not wanting to pay for abortions but asking the government to step in and pass a law saying women will have to pay for abortion insurance in the off chance they might get raped and impregnated (or by other means...) is ridiculously. Added or additional insurance sure but mandatory? If your family has a predisposition to cancer should you be required by law to pay extra insurance premiums and if you don't you don't have the option for treatment? Added insurance that is your choice sure but anything else would be nuts.

Sorry, that post was entirely directed at puck luck, just liked your my choice quote and then onto a general rant.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by puckluck

I'm in the exact same boat as you, and it's like a troubling crossroad where I don't know where the answers are.

I think I'm pro-life and don't like abortion or the killing of any human or fetus, but if my girlfriend got pregnant right now I'd definitely be thinking abortion even if it went against my beliefs, and I'd like that choice to be up to me.

Sounds hypocritical, but it's not a easy situation to be in.

But that's why the debate shouldn't be about whether you think it's right to kill a fetus or kill an unborn child.

The debate should be (and i believe legally is), should a woman have the right to choose what to do with her own body.

I personally believe that abortion should only be used in certain cases (rape, severe birth defects etc...) and if you can have an otherwise healthy child, you should give it up for adoption.

That being said, I don't believe it's the government place to tell people what they can and cannot do with their own body, and thus should never be illegal.

[photon]

I like the adoption route too, though there is risk associated with carrying a baby to term so that still might not be a risk someone's willing to take.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by photon

I like the adoption route too, though there is risk associated with carrying a baby to term so that still might not be a risk someone's willing to take.

Totally agree, that's why I don't think it should be illegal, nor is it my right to tell that person to undertake that risk.