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

[photon]

Agree. I don't know how easy it is to do that, but that's one area they should make it very easy for the mother to do.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Most Canadians are offended by folks useing abortion to select the gender of their child. I don't see any difference in what you are talking about.

You don't see a difference in not wanting a girl and not wanting a child to have a disability that will slowly and surely kill them at a young age in one of the most horrific manners possible?

That is one of the most insanely idiotic comments you could possibly come up with.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Rape is really a red herring here.

Actually abortion in general is a red herring.

For all the huffing and puffing of the Republican party in an effort to garner votes, no state has succeeded in completely banning Abortion since the Roe v Wade decision in 1973.

Almost 40 years of Abortions in America, yet it somehow manages to get people to vote along party lines. Sad really.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I've talked to women who have recieved abortions in Canada who say they did feel pressured by the health professionals. As Rob Kerr likes to say the truth will be some place in the middle. Again information isn't a bad thing.


Useing your logic a women shouldn't be allowed the morning after pill either because her thinking might not be rational. Perhaps in a few days or weeks she would regret her decision. She is responsible for her actions and people who HATE abortion shouldn't be forced to help pay for her choices.

Ethically a nurse is duty bound to educate and provide information to the client who is then able to make up their own mind. Just because they don't decide to do what you want them to do doesn't mean that they are not educated or that they feel pressured. If there is someone who is looking into getting an abortion I don't think that they really need to be pressured in order to have the abortion, they are already inquiring about the service by their own free will.

Also using my logic that you shouldn't tell someone how to react after being raped means that someone is going to be irrational? No I am saying that people have different reactions to a traumatic situation and that is understandable. People at the best of times don't all think the exact same way - let alone people in crisis.

Also if you hate abortion, don't get one. But just because you HATE something and know how to use capslock doesn't mean you have the right to tell other people what they should and should not do with their own body. Fact of the matter is - this isn't about economics at all but it is about trying to convince fewer women to have abortions, regardless of circumstance, because that is more conducive to your views.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

You don't see a difference in not wanting a girl and not wanting a child to have a disability that will slowly and surely kill them at a young age in one of the most horrific manners possible?

That is one of the most insanely idiotic comments you could possibly come up with.

Wanting one sex or the other is not that unusual. It actually is quite common. Often we ask an expecting couple what they are hoping for.

It becomes offensive when a mother decides to abort her unborn because it is the wrong sex. Why if that unborn child has no worth until the mother decides to value him or her?

Also if that unborn child has value when he or she is healthy even when the mother wants it killed for being the wrong sex then how can consider an unhealthy child to be of no value? We don't treat the sick like that on this side of the womb.

[Yasa]

I don't think it's a matter of the sick child "having no value," but rather the parents wanting to avoid a lifetime of pain and suffering. There's a huge difference between preference and prevention.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Wanting one sex or the other is not that unusual. It actually is quite common. Often we ask an expecting couple what they are hoping for.

It becomes offensive when a mother decides to abort her unborn because it is the wrong sex. Why if that unborn child has no worth until the mother decides to value him or her?

Also if that unborn child has value when he or she is healthy even when the mother wants it killed for being the wrong sex then how can consider an unhealthy child to be of no value? We don't treat the sick like that on this side of the womb.

The thing that offends me about 'Christians' like you, is you pretend you really care about your "brothers and sisters".

Fortunately, you also show your true colours:

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Stephen Hawkins can't even see the sky without help. I'm not suprised he can't envision heaven.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Yasa

I don't think it's a matter of the sick child "having no value," but rather the parents wanting to avoid a lifetime of pain and suffering. There's a huge difference between preference and prevention.

That's not really the point though. If you are on the pro-choice side, then you have to support a woman aborting a pregnancy because it not the desired sex. Same goes with a woman smoking or drinking while she is pregnant. Can't look down on that either.

[Yasa]

Originally Posted by Ark2

That's not really the point though. If you are on the pro-choice side, then you have to support a woman aborting a pregnancy because it not the desired sex. Same goes with a woman smoking or drinking while she is pregnant. Can't look down on that either.

C'mon Ark, you should know abortion is not a black and white issue. There's no rule saying "If you accept one reason for abortion, you accept them all."

Gender is not a disability, you can't compare it to one in this context.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Actually abortion in general is a red herring.

For all the huffing and puffing of the Republican party in an effort to garner votes, no state has succeeded in completely banning Abortion since the Roe v Wade decision in 1973.

Almost 40 years of Abortions in America, yet it somehow manages to get people to vote along party lines. Sad really.

There has been other fights like partial birth abortion and the Democrat's habit of throwing in abortion funding in with foriegn aid. Everybody knows that it will take a change within the supreme court to get Roe verses Wade overturned.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Yasa

C'mon Ark, you should know abortion is not a black and white issue. There's no rule saying "If you accept one reason for abortion, you accept them all."

Gender is not a disability, you can't compare it to one in this context.

What do you mean? In the eyes of the law, all reasons for abortion are acceptable. No one is arguing that abortion should only be permissible in certain extreme (and let's face it, rare) cases. The argument is whether unborn children/fetuses deserve any rights. According to the law, prior to a certain stage of development, they do not. That's it. So, if you agree with current abortion laws, then a pregnant woman aborting an unborn child/fetus that was conceived by rape is no more or less valid than a woman aborting an unborn child/fetus because she doesn't like its gender or no more or less valid than a woman choosing to smoke and drink while she is pregnant. It's her body, therefore, it is her choice.

[Yasa]

Originally Posted by Ark2

What do you mean? In the eyes of the law, all reasons for abortion are acceptable. No one is arguing that abortion should only be permissible in certain extreme (and let's face it, rare) cases. The argument is whether unborn children/fetuses deserve any rights. According to the law, prior to a certain stage of development, they do not. That's it. So, if you agree with current abortion laws, then a pregnant woman aborting an unborn child/fetus that was conceived by rape is no more or less valid than a woman aborting an unborn child/fetus because she doesn't like its gender or no more or less valid than a woman choosing to smoke and drink while she is pregnant. It's her body, therefore, it is her choice.

I have no experience in abortions, and I'm not an expert by any means but I find it hard to believe that under current laws, "wrong gender" would be a valid reason to have an abortion.

Is there a checkbox that one must fill out, and is "wrong gender" listed as one of the reasons for an abortion?

I do believe that doctors are typically unable to find the gender of a child before 12 weeks, and it's commonly done at the 16-20 week mark which I'm sure is beyond the legal time frame for an abortion. Which makes the whole "gender vs. disability" debate useless.

Regardless of those details, there is again no rule saying that "if you are pro-choice, you must accept and believe in all current abortion laws." That's absolutely false. You can be pro-choice and be accepting of abortions under certain circumstance, but that doesn't mean you have to approve of every reason to get an abortion.

It's not an all-or-nothing belief system.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Yasa

I have no experience in abortions, and I'm not an expert by any means but I find it hard to believe that under current laws, "wrong gender" would be a valid reason to have an abortion.

Don't think so. I'm sure there are a handful of posters that would clamour incoherently how having to give a "valid reason" would infringe on women's rights.

I do believe that doctors are typically unable to find the gender of a child before 12 weeks, and it's commonly done at the 16-20 week mark which I'm sure is beyond the legal time frame for an abortion. Which makes the whole "gender vs. disability" debate useless.

It is legal to get an abortion up until the end of the second trimester. Mind you, a doctor may find that the health risks are too great and refuse to perform the operation at such a late time, but the issue I am discussing here is legality.

Regardless of those details, there is again no rule saying that "if you are pro-choice, you must accept and believe in all current abortion laws." That's absolutely false. You can be pro-choice and be accepting of abortions under certain circumstance, but that doesn't mean you have to approve of every reason to get an abortion.

It's not an all-or-nothing belief system.

Again, the issue that I am discussing here is legality. I am well aware that people have their own views on the matter that do not fall into an all or nothing system, but the law does not. If you support abortion laws, then this is what you are supporting. I'm not saying whether that is right or wrong, but it would be nice to have a conversation about it without one side constantly jumping to the conception via rape scenario. In the eyes of the law, an abortion is an abortion.

[Nuje]

Originally Posted by Ark2

I'm not saying whether that is right or wrong, but it would be nice to have a conversation about it without one side constantly jumping to the conception via rape scenario. In the eyes of the law, an abortion is an abortion.

Ok, that's fair. I'll stop jumping to that one, as long as the pro-life side stops jumping to the partial birth abortion scenario.

For myself, I'd consider brain activity the cut-off. By that point, I think it's nearly impossible to not have noticed that you're pregnant, and it would be a good idea to make your decision before then.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Wanting one sex or the other is not that unusual. It actually is quite common. Often we ask an expecting couple what they are hoping for.

It becomes offensive when a mother decides to abort her unborn because it is the wrong sex. Why if that unborn child has no worth until the mother decides to value him or her?

Also if that unborn child has value when he or she is healthy even when the mother wants it killed for being the wrong sex then how can consider an unhealthy child to be of no value? We don't treat the sick like that on this side of the womb.

They are doing it because they value the life of the child and don't want to see someones life be marred by misery and the knowledge that their fate is one worse than death.

And if a woman wants a boy but is having a girl - is that the type of person you want as a mother anyway? In my experiences, which are limited I admit, I have never heard of someone getting an abortion because they want a child of another gender. Not once. Even if that was the case though - I do believe that the woman has the right to decide that for herself.

If someone doesn't want a child - they shouldn't have children.

[Yasa]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Again, the issue that I am discussing here is legality. I am well aware that people have their own views on the matter that do not fall into an all or nothing system, but the law does not. If you support abortion laws, then this is what you are supporting. I'm not saying whether that is right or wrong, but it would be nice to have a conversation about it without one side constantly jumping to the conception via rape scenario. In the eyes of the law, an abortion is an abortion.

I suppose this is where I strayed away, and thought you were using the law as framework for the pro-choice belief. Sorry about that. Yes, in the eyes of the law all reasons are equal, unfortunately. So I will agree with you there.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Don't think so. I'm sure there are a handful of posters that would clamour incoherently how having to give a "valid reason" would infringe on women's rights.

Really no need to "clamour incoherently at all. There is strong precedent that the questioning of motives, or sincerity of reasoning, infringes on individual rights. This is largely in the freedom of religion context, but the same basic principles apply here.

I don't agree with sex selective abortion, but I'm also not a fan of the government having the ability to tell people whether or not their motives are sufficient justification for their actions. What becomes okay then? Only cases of medical necessity? Only where the baby is suffering from illness? I just don't see how you can draw any type of line when you're talking about evaluating someone's motives. It would turn every single abortion into a judicial hearing on whether or not the reasons were good enough.

[Thor]

[Ark2]

^ huh?

[Thor]

Really? Have you not read any of the articles posted in this thread?