Given the remarks out of Ontario, I wouldn't be surprised to see the issue on the table soon.
I wouldn't he surprised if Ford introduces bills about or drastically cuts funding for abortion services.
I haven't been paying close attention to Ontario's provincial politics. However, I suppose if anyone is dumb enough to attempt this, it'd probably be Ford. I certainly hope you're wrong, because you're quite right that that might have cascading effects. That would be terrible. If Kenney so much as suggests doing something similar I'll end up having to go to... eugh... Edmonton.
That said, I think at least that Scheer has been pretty unequivocal. Restricting access by limiting services related to abortion is "reopening the debate" in a way that does nothing but horrible things for the Conservatives' election prospects federally and provincially. This is the most conservative province in the country - do you think it would have helped or hurt Kenney to take a public stance on limiting access to abortion during the last election? I don't think there's much doubt that it would have hurt. A lot. And consequently, I would hope that conservative politicians are savvy enough to avoid helping out their opponents like that. But we'll see.
In any case, if by some cascading demonstration of humanity's capacity for stupidity this debate does end up back on the table, I get the feeling anyone with a nuanced and thoughtful perspective is going to be routinely embarrassed by other pro-choice advocates to a point where It'll be tempting to just say "#### it, you're on your own, best of luck".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Funny enough I think the pro-life arguments made in this thread are a lot more reasonable and interesting to read than the 'if you don't want to get an abortion than don't' stupidity.
Well, because that's not a moral argument. It's a bumper sticker. It doesn't even make any sense. It's been so long since anyone pro-choice actually had to make a principled case for their views that most people take it as read that they're right and no more thought need be put into the matter.
The one thing I object to most on this topic is the level of certainty that so many people bring to it. There's none to be had, and there never has been, so stop acting like your view is so obviously the correct one.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I’m sorry, how is it a stupid thing to say? You think, as a 37 year old educated woman who leans feminist, that I haven’t “put any thought” into abortion and bodily autonomy?
You can debate when life starts for a fetus. But you can’t debate that the person gestating the fetus is unquestionably alive and has (or is supposed to have) bodily autonomy.
“If you don’t like murder, don’t murder someone” is not equivalent.
I’m sorry, how is it a stupid thing to say? You think, as a 37 year old educated woman who leans feminist, that I haven’t “put any thought” into abortion and bodily autonomy?
Apparently not, based on what you've posted here. Your last post was embarrassing.
Quote:
You can debate when life starts for a fetus. But you can’t debate that the person gestating the fetus is unquestionably alive and has (or is supposed to have) bodily autonomy.
Yes, a woman unquestionably has the right to bodily autonomy. What is questionable in the context of this debate is whether there is another moral person involved, and if so when that other moral person comes into being, and concomitantly, whether (and if so, when) the woman's right to bodily autonomy infringes on that other moral person's right to live (or have a chance to live), and if so, whether it's okay that it does infringe on those rights, and to what extent.
Quote:
“If you don’t like murder, don’t murder someone” is not equivalent.
Only if you take it as read that eliminating a foetus is not murder. If you instead take it as read that moral personhood begins at some point before birth, it's exactly equivalent. There is no apparent morally relevant factor that would suggest drawing the line at one place or the other. Accordingly, other than as a matter of pragmatism, there is no reason to prefer "birth" to "brain activity" to "ability to feel pain", and so on.
In essence, you can draw any number of distinctions you like - the child's ability to survive on its own, its ability to form thought, its ability to feel pain, but unless you have some bedrock moral justification for why that is the thing that makes the difference, why that's the key factor, you're just back to arbitrary intuition.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
I don’t like this argument because it ignores any discussion of ethics and morality. It is a reasonable response in the light of groups trying to create heart beat laws but it misses the moral/ethical question that exists.
If a fetus is a bundle of cells no different from a 6th finger then you are absolutely correct.
If a fetus is alive than society has a duty to protect those that can’t protect themselves.
It certainly fine to argue that bodily autonomy trumps and a parasite has no rights therefore if you think abortion is wrong don’t get one is all that matters.
But “protecting” the fetus means you’re restricting the rights/needs of another, also very much alive, human being who’s carrying the fetus. Protections for the fetus are automatically stripping rights from the carrier. The rights of the carrier have become secondary to the rights of the fetus.
I’m sorry, how is it a stupid thing to say? You think, as a 37 year old educated woman who leans feminist, that I haven’t “put any thought” into abortion and bodily autonomy?
You can debate when life starts for a fetus. But you can’t debate that the person gestating the fetus is unquestionably alive and has (or is supposed to have) bodily autonomy.
“If you don’t like murder, don’t murder someone” is not equivalent.
Mod edit
Last edited by Iowa_Flames_Fan; 05-20-2019 at 08:15 AM.
Solid rebuttal! I think I'll pass, given that there appear to be a bunch of people who, instead of actually being able to carry on an actual argument or come up with a rational perspective, would rather point to what's between my legs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spuzzum
Sorry but close your legs if you want to maintain complete control over your body. It's not only about you. As with most things in life, actions have consequences.
As much as I think Peanut's original post was stupid, it didn't remotely suggest anything bad about her as a human being.
I can't say that about this post and you.
You should be banned from this forum immediately and permanently.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 05-18-2019 at 10:24 AM.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Sorry but close your legs if you want to maintain complete control over your body. It's not only about you. As with most things in life, actions have consequences.
Lol!!! Holy ####. Ejaculate responsibly. Women aren’t creating babies and having abortions alone.
__________________
comfortably numb
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Peanut For This Useful Post:
Sorry but close your legs if you want to maintain complete control over your body. It's not only about you. As with most things in life, actions have consequences.
Yes, if you want bodily autonomy then restrict your autonomy.
That's not to mention birth control failing, or a fetus jeopardizing a person's health, or the fact you should have kept your legs closed instead of being raped.
I can't imagine telling someone, you have a medical condition that jeopardizes your health if you become pregnant, you're never allowed to have sex.
I can't imagine telling a girl, yes your partner pulled off the condom then ejaculated inside you, should have kept your legs closed.
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Maritime Q-Scout For This Useful Post:
Sorry but close your legs if you want to maintain complete control over your body. It's not only about you. As with most things in life, actions have consequences.
We deal with a lot of calls where women did not have a choice in the matter.
I understand the point you’re trying to make here, however, there are outliers beyond personal control you’re not considering.
Solid rebuttal! I think I'll pass, given that there appear to be a bunch of people who, instead of actually being able to carry on an actual argument or come up with a rational perspective, would rather point to what's between my legs.
As much as I think Peanut's original post was stupid, it didn't remotely suggest anything bad about her as a human being.
I can't say that about this post and you.
You should be banned from this forum immediately and permanently.
There’s just no point debating it. It’s also offensive to be called stupid so I’m not encouraged to engage. I actually find the debate really upsetting and also I’m on my phone so I’m not my most eloquent.. I think all arguments at some point relegate the woman to a carrier with no or limited rights, because the fetus needs to live. But her rights don’t suddenly become “restored” once she’s had the baby, because it’s now a living being that needs love, care, and support (financial and otherwise) for 18 years. So it’s actually now a lifetime of imposed restrictions that the woman did not actively choose. And you can argue for adoption, but there’s plenty of kids who don’t get adopted and instead live their childhoods in foster care and whatever else less than ideal circumstances.
To me (at least in our Canadian system) the simplest message really is “if you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one”. I think it includes men in the message - they are involved in birth control decisions (or they should be!) and in the vast majority of cases would be involved in the decision to terminate a pregnancy.
__________________
comfortably numb
The Following User Says Thank You to Peanut For This Useful Post:
“If you don’t like murder, don’t murder someone” is not equivalent.
You and I don't believe it's murder, but the people you're talking to when you say that do. It's not a persuasive argument to tell someone to accept something they feel is awful. You need to persuade them that it's not awful in the first place.
That is what the first 7 or pages of this thread is about. It's not a black or white decision or conversation. There is a pendulum depending where you reside and the wills of society.
-22 or 26 weeks or not at all
-It is my decision, my body
-Religion verses personal individual rights
-The rights of the unborn
-Is it heart or brain development and a scientific correlation
My point is in a 'me me' society, on this topic, it's not always about me
In an impossible attempt to square the circle on the various arguments - I think there are a number of things most reasonable people could agree:
- most on both sides come to the table in good faith. Not about control over others, but deeply held conviction. Some are obviously exceptions.
- abortion is going to happen whether or not it is legal or illegal. Outcomes of illegal abortions have proven to be pretty disastrous.
- our instincts tell us that it would seem that 5 minutes before birth there is a life that would seem unethical to end for reasons other than medical/ life of the mother at stake. Most probably feel that way further back in the pregnancy to some point of fetal viability outside the womb.
- however if someone gets to say 8 months pregnancy they have already decided to take a pregnancy to term. So the extreme case of late term abortion is likely 99.9% a medical issue, not an arbitrary termination.
- limits to abortion at say a heartbeat seem unreasonably early as there is a decent likelihood a person unexpectedly pregnant may not know they are pregnant at that point. If they want an abortion, and is illegal, they may seek an unsafe one anyway.
- if there is limits, I think most would agree a more defensible one would be somewhere past mid-term between say 12 and 24 weeks. Not too early to not know, but not past viability outside the womb. There is no bright line.
- but since late term abortions are going to be almost certainly have medical reasons based on the life and health of the baby or mother, the limitations on late term are probably moot and not reasonable to enforce. They are probably solutions in search of a a problem that doesn’t actually exist.
- exceptions for incest or rape should be on the table in any event.
- decisions to abort are probably horrible and gut wrenching for anyone - which tells us there are no black and white ethical knowns here.
I’d argue there must ability to access abortion as a choice - if for no other reason it’ll happen on any event and it would be unethical to push it underground. I don’t think limitations are necessary, but if there is one, it must be reasonable in terms of time and circumstances of the pregnancy (such as rape, incest or health).
__________________
Trust the snake.
Last edited by Bunk; 05-18-2019 at 10:40 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bunk For This Useful Post:
That is what the first 7 or pages of this thread is about. It's not a black or white decision or conversation. There is a pendulum depending where you reside and the wills of society.
-22 or 26 weeks or not at all
-It is my decision, my body
-Religion verses personal individual rights
-The rights of the unborn
-Is it heart or brain development and a scientific correlation
My point is in a 'me me' society, on this topic, it's not always about me
If I needed a kidney and we were a match, would it be ok for you to be forced to give me one?
After all, in a 'me me' society, it's not always about me.
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
But “protecting” the fetus means you’re restricting the rights/needs of another, also very much alive, human being who’s carrying the fetus. Protections for the fetus are automatically stripping rights from the carrier. The rights of the carrier have become secondary to the rights of the fetus.
Now you are engaging in the moral debate rather than ignoring it with a platitude. It is precisely the trade off of rights that creates this disagreements. That was my only criticism with your original post.
To me it is not a complicated issue. Until it is out of the woman's body, it is under her control, full stop. Even if that means making a decision I disagree with. If super late abortions became trendy then perhaps education/counseling can help stem the tide, but I don't believe that is an issue today and doubt it really becomes one later.
Don't like how adversarial the debate becomes, though can understand it a bit as it is obviously an emotional issue. Also don't think it is a men vs women thing, but a complicated moral issue that has men and women both sides of the coin.
You and I don't believe it's murder, but the people you're talking to when you say that do. It's not a persuasive argument to tell someone to accept something they feel is awful. You need to persuade them that it's not awful in the first place.
Oh I thought the argument was more like, don’t go out an murder another living being in society. And obviously beyond “well I don’t like murder so I’m not going to kill someone” we have laws and justice for people who do actually murder someone.
But that debate is missing the fact where someone else’s bodily autonomy and rights are being significantly compromised to prevent the murder of another human. Or at least, that’s how I was thinking about it.
