Canadians in the dark about Abortion laws: Poll

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by alltherage

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

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.

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

I didn't say I thought the fetus has no rights, I said the poor shmoe who got run over and killed had a right to live as well but we are ok with road deaths because owning cars are convienient, the moral arguement is the same, you cannot say you are ok with cars but not ok with abortion, both, by your logic, kill many thousand of innocent people every year.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I didn't say I thought the fetus has no rights, I said the poor shmoe who got run over and killed had a right to live as well but we are ok with road deaths because owning cars are convienient, the moral arguement is the same, you cannot say you are ok with cars but not ok with abortion, both, by your logic, kill many thousand of innocent people every year.

This is an inane argument with not a shred of moral conviction!

Abortion is the view that some individuals aren't worth being alive if an arbiter does not believe their life to be as important as one's personal happiness or utility.

Car accidents happen because people are bad drivers.

There's a huge difference.

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

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

In this case, why not just kill anyone that's inconvenient to you? What makes a Human Human? Am I, a 25 year old man, more human than my wife, a 23 year old woman?

[jayswin]

Wooohoooo, took awhile, but now things are finally heating up. I'll get some popcorn.

[Thor]

I think abortions should be allowed up until age 20, cause there's a lot of young in's that really anger me that I'd like to see aborted.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by alltherage

In this case, why not just kill anyone that's inconvenient to you? What makes a Human Human? Am I, a 25 year old man, more human than my wife, a 23 year old woman?

IMHO all this timeline abortion stuff is complete b/s.

4 months, 5 months, 6 months, 7 months, 8 months, 8.5 months. The child is not alive until it has breathed on its own. Its not alive inside the mothers womb.

If you allow it, then the timeline shouldnt matter imo, its an all in all out issue imo - there is no convenient middleground for fence-sitters.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by alltherage

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

Fetuses already have rights, they just have to make it to the world. That is why if your wife is pregnant you always drive her around. If she drives and gets in the accident the fetus cannot sue her for the damages caused by the accident, but it can sue the dad and then you get insurance money to help cope with the costs of raising a disabled child. This advice has proven somewhat problematic to my buddies who think they have a designated driver for 9 months, but we must always think of the children.

As for the fact that people do not know the law, meh, most people do not know the laws of the country. Harper has the ability to ram through some abortion laws if he wanted to touch the issue, with the support of the socially conservative members of the Liberal caucus and a few NDP MP's. He has failed to do so, thus indicating that the issue is not a high priority at this time for the government.

If the argument is that you should not have abortions because a fetus is a human life, then there should be no exceptions. I am not sure why a human life caused by rape or incest is any less valuable than a life born out of a one night stand. If you make any form of abortion absolutely illegal, then all forms should be, in the interest of logical continuity. I have a hard time understanding how any pro-lifer can make an exception for the girl who was brutally gang raped and has a human life in her, but feels it should be mandated that a girl who consistently goes out and has one night stands and one slipped past the goalie should be forced to have the child.

I also agree with mykAlberta, there should be no timelines. If it is a human life at conception, why would there be a law that states that you can kill up to a certain point. It should be a black and white issue for anti-abortionists.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by peter12

This is an inane argument with not a shred of moral conviction!

Abortion is the view that some individuals aren't worth being alive if an arbiter does not believe their life to be as important as one's personal happiness or utility.

Car accidents happen because people are bad drivers.

There's a huge difference.

If you ban cars there are no more car accidents. we can catch a bus or a train, it would be a pain in the arse but it would save thousands of lives a year.

As a society we decide the lives we know will be ended by ownership of cars are woth it for the convenience of car ownership.

Industrial accidents, polution, increases in cancer due to enviromental carcinagens etc. All things that we know will cause deaths but we decide are worth it as a society for our convinience.

[peter12]

The real problem that I have with this issue is when the State is involved. The State is not an instrument of social progress and it's not the beacon of moral standing for the citizenry. We should not have many laws against abortion, although I think there should be some. Partial birth abortion is heinous and if we allow that, than we should at least make the doctor strangle the baby with its own birth cord. To me, it's murder and it should be treated as murder instead of some sancrosanct medical operation.

People shouldn't get abortions because the culture that they live in has the fabric and institutions to support young mothers and because they have the correct moral standing to make the proper decisions for themselves.

Most women who abort are either naive of morality, looking out for themselves or are entirely bereft of what we might call social capital or in a more philosophical sense, proper friendship.

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

IMHO all this timeline abortion stuff is complete b/s.

4 months, 5 months, 6 months, 7 months, 8 months, 8.5 months. The child is not alive until it has breathed on its own. Its not alive inside the mothers womb.

If you allow it, then the timeline shouldnt matter imo, its an all in all out issue imo - there is no convenient middleground for fence-sitters.

So we disagree. I'm shocked! It's OK with me to disagree with you. At least you are consistent.

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

Fetuses already have rights, they just have to make it to the world. That is why if your wife is pregnant you always drive her around. If she drives and gets in the accident the fetus cannot sue her for the damages caused by the accident, but it can sue the dad and then you get insurance money to help cope with the costs of raising a disabled child. This advice has proven somewhat problematic to my buddies who think they have a designated driver for 9 months, but we must always think of the children.

Never heard this before... since when can a fetus sue his father? Even if the "Fetus" is born etc, he/she has a limited time which he/she may sue the father... and nobody says he/she will win. With abortion, he/she always loses.

As for the fact that people do not know the law, meh, most people do not know the laws of the country. Harper has the ability to ram through some abortion laws if he wanted to touch the issue, with the support of the socially conservative members of the Liberal caucus and a few NDP MP's. He has failed to do so, thus indicating that the issue is not a high priority at this time for the government.

Fair enough.

If the argument is that you should not have abortions because a fetus is a human life, then there should be no exceptions. I am not sure why a human life caused by rape or incest is any less valuable than a life born out of a one night stand. If you make any form of abortion absolutely illegal, then all forms should be, in the interest of logical continuity. I have a hard time understanding how any pro-lifer can make an exception for the girl who was brutally gang raped and has a human life in her, but feels it should be mandated that a girl who consistently goes out and has one night stands and one slipped past the goalie should be forced to have the child.

I agree 100%. In one of my earlier posts, I stated that it would be a compromise between pro-lifers and pro-choicers. A life is a life is a life.

I also agree with mykAlberta, there should be no timelines. If it is a human life at conception, why would there be a law that states that you can kill up to a certain point. It should be a black and white issue for anti-abortionists.

Exactly. I agree 100% with this. One of the biggest things I always harken back to, is that truth is always truth. It never contradicts itself.

I dont want you to think my concessions were lapses in logic, they are compromises with the majority.

[4X4]

IMO, the fetus is part of the woman until it is born and becomes an independent living breathing human. The woman should have control over her own body. I am pro choice 100%

[Weiser Wonder]

Agreed, 4X4. While I don't agree with abortion in many situations, that's the woman's choice to make without legal consequences.

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by 4X4

IMO, the fetus is part of the woman until it is born and becomes an independent living breathing human. The woman should have control over her own body. I am pro choice 100%

I think any decision about when a fetus becomes "human" is fairly arbitrary. When it starts out as a fertilized egg it clearly has no awareness or feelings. Long before it is actually born it has the ability to respond to stimuli though - a case could be made that it is human at that point. Or you could make the case that it is a human at the point where it could survive with medical assistance if it were removed from the mother - generally at around 24 weeks. Or you could go with when it actually does leave the mother, regardless of developmental stage. Or you could go with when it gains some level of self-awareness, or when it is able to survive without assistance (both much later - though I don't think very many would advocate "after-birth abortion").

My own position isn't very black and white. I'd like to see the need for abortion reduced (e.g. with proper education on birth control, and awareness of alternatives), but accept that sometimes it's going to happen for various reasons, and if abortions are going to happen I'd rather it was done in a safe, controlled environment rather than a back alley. I think the medical association policy of no abortions after 20 weeks except to save the mother's life is a reasonable compromise.

[alltherage]

edit:
wrong thread

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

I think any decision about when a fetus becomes "human" is fairly arbitrary.

I'd say that as long as it's inside the woman and attached by a cord, it is part of the woman.

[HeartsOfFire]

Abortion ought to be legal up until contractions. At that point, you've made your bed, now lie in it. And push.

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I'd say that as long as it's inside the woman and attached by a cord, it is part of the woman.

What about after it's born, but before the umbellical cord is cut? Or what if the mother dies, and they do emergency surgery and save the baby?

These are the wrenches in this whole debate in my opinion.

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I'd say that as long as it's inside the woman and attached by a cord, it is part of the woman.

Fine, but that's still an arbitrary distinction. Personally I'd argue that rather it's dependent on the woman just before birth, since it can respond independently to stimuli long before then, and could survive if it was removed and the cord cut. That's why I'd agree with a limit of 20 weeks or so, when the fetus is responsive and capable of surviving outside the womb - that should also be plenty of time for a woman to decide whether she wants an abortion unless there are extenuating circumstances. I acknowledge that my position is arbitrary too, and I'd rank the mother's life as having more value than the fetus, though.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by alltherage

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.

the way i see it, this planet is way too overpopulated as it is. with 6.6 Billion people already on Earth, i don't see how preventing one more unwanted human from joining the masses is a big deal