Canadians in the dark about Abortion laws: Poll

[HeartsOfFire]

Originally Posted by peter12

We've already uncovered that my assumptions were correct.

Having gone back and read Hemi-Cuda's remarks following your assumption, I fail to see difinitive proof of your claim.

But for the sake of argument let us say that your assumptions are indeed correct. It is out of line, extremely improper -- not to mention rude -- to make such a damning assumption about someone's ethical or moral values without proof. If however the precedent is established beforehand, then by all means, fire away.

You cannot call a club a spade, unless either a) you can prove your claim, or b) it has already been proven for you.

[goaliegirl]

I am a pretty staunch pro choicer, I do think there should be restrictions in place in regards to how late you can have a uncomplicated pregnancy aborted, 20 weeks is where I personally would draw the line, so maybe 24 weeks. After 24 weeks the majority of babies born could survive outside the womb.
In pregnancies where the baby has a known defect incompatible with life or the mother gets life threatening complications there should IMO be no cut off date. I would think most mothers who are having health issues would choose delivery over abortion anyway after 24 weeks.

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

give me a valid argument that all human life is sacred and must be protected at all cost without reverting to religion

ignoring the God aspect then, i simply believe that we should spend more time and effort into ensuring the quality of life for the people that are already here, and not on "potential" humans whose parents wouldn't be ready to care for them properly. i recommend you look at the documentary Aftermath: Population Overload on the National Geographic Channel, to see what will happen if the human population keeps expanding beyond what our planet can support

I simply believe that all humans have the same rights, no matter how old they are. I know that 100% the human genetic codes are present even in an embrio, and that it simply comes down to what stage of development you believe an embrio or fetus becomes a human.

For me, this is the grey area, and personally this is where other grey areas exist as well. I think it's absurd to say a fetus isn't human, and then ten seconds later when the fetus is born all of a sudden its a human baby.

I also believe that being Human doesn't have any scientific parameters except that you are born of two other human's DNA through reproduction. Therefore, as a human, even though you can't speak for yourself, may be dependant on another, or are not as old as other people, you deserve the same rights as other humans.

Developmental timelines are inherently flawed because, by that developmental timeline logic, a 90-year old man is more human than a 30-year old woman. Who's life is more valuable then? Most people who see disparity in the values of human lives would probably say that the 30 year old woman deserves to continue to live because there is more potential for her life and the old man has lived a lifetime already.

Therefore, I draw my conclusions that, if Humans are born of two other humans, and that developmental timelines are flawed, that humanity begins at conception.

If all humans are equal, then even a human that has no fingers, hair, eyes, voice, is still a human and has rights. We have a resposibility to that human to facilitate their rights until they can stand up for themselves.

I don't think, as you state "that we should spend more time and effort into ensuring the quality of life for the people that are already here" because once a human is conceived, they have the right to live.

By your logic, if basic life necesities were projected to vanish in 1 year unless we "abort/kill" half of the population, we would kill everyone younger than the average age... let's say 30 years old.

So now we're really splitting hairs again. Is a 29 year old born in August 1981 less human than a 30 year old born in July 1981? I say no.

.................

Now, lets examine a worst case scenario: Some disgusting dirty uncle rapes and impregnates his 16 year old niece. He has HIV. The mother is infected, and the child is not only infected, but severely disabled.

I still fail to see why the baby should pay with his/her life. This punishes the baby for a crime the baby did not commit.

If the mother has unbelievable conviction and strength, she gives birth to the child, but cannot look at the child without recounting the horrible rape from her uncle.

She gives the child up for adoption, and the child basically goes into an orphanage for special needs children. There are people there who can love and care for the child, give him/her the best possible quality of life, and perhaps in the next 20 years that the baby is alive, there are "miraculous" breakthroughs in HIV research which finds a vaccine or cure.

Far fetched? Yes, ridiculously far fetched. But also has the advantage of being 100% uncertain. If you had Cancer and the Doc said "Hey, you have 6 months to live with only a 10% chance to survive", and you going to say "screw it Doc, kill me now."? It really doesnt matter, because either way- you had the choice. The infant never did.

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by alltherage

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

Quote:

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.

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.
[/LEFT]
[/COLOR][/LEFT]

Not only did I know the pregnant victim, I went out with Roxanne a couple of years before she was murdered. I still cannot believe someone could kill such a good hearted person. This has been hard on me, but I cannot even imagine what her immediate family has been through since her death.

Never mind Abortion laws, we should reintroduce capital punishment. Nobody can ever convine me those three cowards who did this deserve to live.

[HeartsOfFire]

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.

Point 1: Assuming Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge's proposed legislation was already law before Roxanne was murdered, I guarantee you it would not have affected her boyfriend's choice. She would still have been killed. Bruinooge's law would do absolutely nothing to help her, or women in her predicament. In fact, if it were even enforcable, all it would do is put a lot of scared young men behind bars.

Point 2: It's already a criminal offence to attack a woman (actually, anyone regardless of gender). Whether you attack a person, or attack them with the intent of killing their unborn child, you're still attacking them at the heart of it.

I'm surprised no one brought these up already.

Some people would consider parenting a form of jail sentence, anyways.

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

Point 1: Assuming Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge's proposed legislation was already law before Roxanne was murdered, I guarantee you it would not have affected her boyfriend's choice. She would still have been killed. Bruinooge's law would do absolutely nothing to help her, or women in her predicament. In fact, if it were even enforcable, all it would do is put a lot of scared young men behind bars.

i agree.

This law would not have helped Apple (Roxanne) at all. Her only flaw was wanting to be loved too much. That is what makes her murder such a tragedy. Apple would have never called the police on this coward because she was carrying his baby, and just wanted him to love her. So, I too do not believe it would have changed the end result.

However, what we really need is a law to make it a double murder to kill a pregnant woman, if the offender had knowledge of the victims pregnancy (a law was passed in the USA several years ago, as a result of the Laci Peterson case).

Nothing can ever bring Apple back. I miss her everyday, and it is like there is a hole in my heart which will never be mended. I just pray something good will come out of this.

having met Mr.Bruinoodge, I can honestly say he is a good person, and his heart is in the right place. In fact we are working on dedicating a memorial to Roxanne in Winnipeg, since her family chose to bury her in the Philippines, as that is where she was born and raised (she immigrated to Canada in 2003).

[HeartsOfFire]

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

However, what we really need is a law to make it a double murder to kill a pregnant woman, if the offender had knowledge of the victims pregnancy (a law was passed in the USA several years ago, as a result of the Laci Peterson case).

I can see and respect your opinion on the law, but I would never agree to it. If only because it would be the inch that Pro-lifers take to take their mile.

[GGG]

I am staunchly against abortion regardless of circumstance except when a women is in danger however making it illegal is not the answer. Better education and convincing people that adoption is an excellent option is better. I just can't stand when the argument goes I can't provide the life I want for my child so I will have an abortion

[HeartsOfFire]

How many children have you adopted? And how many more are you planning to adopt?

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by peter12

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.

Wow. I hope you never plan on running for political office with the crap you spout.

This may top your 'most people are too stupid to have the right to vote' position.

[HeartsOfFire]

Actually, I think what peter12 is saying can be applied to most people, not just women.

Where opinions will differ is on the naïvete of morals. My morals are not the same as your morals, for example.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by alltherage

I simply believe that all humans have the same rights, no matter how old they are. I know that 100% the human genetic codes are present even in an embrio, and that it simply comes down to what stage of development you believe an embrio or fetus becomes a human.

For me, this is the grey area, and personally this is where other grey areas exist as well. I think it's absurd to say a fetus isn't human, and then ten seconds later when the fetus is born all of a sudden its a human baby.

Serious question: What is your position on masturbation, oral sex and various forms of birth control? Arguably each drop of 'wasted' seed is a life never given the opportunity to live.

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

Point 1: Assuming Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge's proposed legislation was already law before Roxanne was murdered, I guarantee you it would not have affected her boyfriend's choice. She would still have been killed. Bruinooge's law would do absolutely nothing to help her, or women in her predicament. In fact, if it were even enforcable, all it would do is put a lot of scared young men behind bars.

Point 2: It's already a criminal offence to attack a woman (actually, anyone regardless of gender). Whether you attack a person, or attack them with the intent of killing their unborn child, you're still attacking them at the heart of it.

I'm surprised no one brought these up already.

Some people would consider parenting a form of jail sentence, anyways.

That is a good point. And lets acknowledge that the reason the Conservative government introduced the unborn fetus law was to slowly introduce legislation that will give the fetus legal status and subsequently make abortions illegal.

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Serious question: What is your position on masturbation, oral sex and various forms of birth control? Arguably each drop of 'wasted' seed is a life never given the opportunity to live.

My view is that people should giver on all three, and personally, I do all three regularly. Why not? Life begins at conception, not before. Sure sperm is an ingredient for conception, but alone it is just sperm.

Otherwise every time a woman has her period it is wasted life, no?

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

That is a good point. And lets acknowledge that the reason the Conservative government introduced the unborn fetus law was to slowly introduce legislation that will give the fetus legal status and subsequently make abortions illegal.

The USA, and several other countries have enacted laws where the killing of a woman and her unborn fetus results in a double murder charge. However, abortion is still legal in all of these countries.

Personally, I am for abortion only when the woman is raped, or her health is in danger. Having said that, I believe it's a personal opinion, and the state should not interfere, but rather reflect the views of the majority of Canadians on this issue.

Saying that this type of law will lead to the criminalization of all abortions is not only absurd, but is just plain fear mongering by the pro-choice crowd. The law is more about punishment than criminalizing abortions. After all, this is a country that gave Henry Morgentaller the Order of Canada.

[Flashpoint]

I don't see how anyone could strictly oppose abortion unless they are willing to adopt the unwanted children that would result.

As a society the determination of when a fetus is "alive" will never be resolved. You'll never convince me that 3 cells is a person, and I'll never convince you that a woman should utterly have the right to decide what to do with her own body.

All we can do is argue around the edges - and if you advocate any form of restriction of abortion on the basis of "pro-life" then I hope you are protesting every execution performed in the US, and have 10 adopted children at home. Otherwise you're a hypocrite.

The lesser evil between the abortion of a fetus, or a lifetime of being raised by the state, is the abortion IMO.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

The USA, and several other countries have enacted laws where the killing of a woman and her unborn fetus results in a double murder charge. However, abortion is still legal in all of these countries.

I think if one is crazy enough to murder someone, the knowledge that you'll get a double murder charge for the fetus isn't going to slow you down any. You're already a nutter if you're killing someone. So there isn't any deterrent there.

I can see why the pro-life crowd would want it on the books though. It's a short jump to "if you stab a pregnant woman, and the fetus dies, but she lives, it should be a murder charge." The law is then acknowledging that the fetus is a person.