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

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Thor

lol this is to both sides, we should stop with the pro-abortion anti-abortion labels.

Nobody is pro abortion, they are pro womens reproductive rights. So pro choice and pro life are fine labels, even though pro life makes it sound like the opposite is pro death lol.

Pro women's reproductive rights is a BS way to frame the argument as well. This is about the unborn child or the immature zygote/fetus/whatever.

Originally Posted by Thor

I already answered this earlier, but curious when do you think a bunch of cells becomes life?

Why does Calgaryborn have to tell you that? Why don't you tell us? I'm reluctantly pro-life and I can't figure out when life starts. I don't like admitting it because it forces me to look harder at my pro-life stance, but I think it starts when the sperm fertilizes the egg.

Calgaryborn raised an important question when he asked you if you'd be willing to abort a baby shortly before he/she was born and you just dismissed it. I thought it was a fair question - if it's a life when it's a cute and cuddly newborn, why isn't it a life 7 months earlier?

[photon]

Originally Posted by valo403

Oh please, obvious typo is obvious.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by valo403

That was suppose to be a negative in that "i sure hope you don't think".
I'll fix the post.

[photon]

Skin cells and bacteria are life too.

There's no way to draw a line because there's no line to be drawn. It's like looking at colours on a prism and trying to say where one colour ends and another begins. I can point to one colour and say this is definitely green (a blastula isn't a person), and point to another and say this is definitely blue (there's no difference between 5 minutes before birth and 5 minutes after birth), but I can't point at something and say exactly where it changes from one to the other.

You can't say life/not life or human/not human because those attributes are not adequate to describe what's trying to be described.

It's a complicated involvement of many different factors.. viability, how much suffering is experienced, how much suffering can be experienced, self awareness, etc.

I don't think there can be any absolute answer, other than earlier is better.. and the vast majority abortions take place quite early (like 91% before 12 weeks I think I read in one UK stat).

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Thor

lol this is to both sides, we should stop with the pro-abortion anti-abortion labels.

Nobody is pro abortion, they are pro womens reproductive rights. So pro choice and pro life are fine labels, even though pro life makes it sound like the opposite is pro death lol.

[I]

I already answered this earlier, but curious when do you think a bunch of cells becomes life?

I kind of stated it in my last post. When the child is implanted in the wall of the uterus.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I kind of stated it in my last post. When the child is implanted in the wall of the uterus.

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.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by photon

Oh please, obvious typo is obvious.

Oh please, obvious joke is obvious.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by valo403

Well at least you made it clear you don't understand the issues. Of course men don't need insurance for abortions, that's the point. A law requiring that individuals purchase insurance for abortions falls completely upon women, creating the discriminatory impact on a protected class.

Men have to pay higher auto insurance premiums, and I am told that that is not discriminatory. How would this be any different?

[MarchHare]

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.

Many pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions for Plan B (which some call "the abortion pill") citing religious objections.

http://www.hpso.com/resources/article/63.jsp

[Yasa]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I know a women in Creston with the same condition. She and her husband chose not to have children because of the possibility of passing on the disease. She acts child like which I guess is part of the disease's progression. I honestly can't imagine a women trying to get pregnant knowing that there is a 50% chance that the child would have the disease and she would be killing it. I also can't imagine wanting children when you know that child will have to watch you slowly die at a young age.

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.

There is a very big difference between gender and genetic disability. I mean, I know women are inferior to men but they're not that bad.

(First sentence serious, second sentence...not serious)

[photon]

Originally Posted by valo403

Oh please, obvious joke is obvious.

Oh please, oh please is oh please!

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

Skin cells and bacteria are life too.

There's no way to draw a line because there's no line to be drawn. It's like looking at colours on a prism and trying to say where one colour ends and another begins. I can point to one colour and say this is definitely green (a blastula isn't a person), and point to another and say this is definitely blue (there's no difference between 5 minutes before birth and 5 minutes after birth), but I can't point at something and say exactly where it changes from one to the other.

You can't say life/not life or human/not human because those attributes are not adequate to describe what's trying to be described.

It's a complicated involvement of many different factors.. viability, how much suffering is experienced, how much suffering can be experienced, self awareness, etc.

I don't think there can be any absolute answer, other than earlier is better.. and the vast majority abortions take place quite early (like 91% before 12 weeks I think I read in one UK stat).

I really think most Canadians would get behind some protection for the child after 5 or 6 months. That wouldn't satisfy me or most of the pro-life crowd but, it would be better than what we have now.

Sometimes difficult questions have to be address. Ignoring the unborn is what Canadians are doing now.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Many pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions for Plan B (which some call "the abortion pill") citing religious objections.

http://www.hpso.com/resources/article/63.jsp

Kind of like the old ladies at Shopper's Drug Mart who give me the evil eye when I buy condoms.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by photon

Skin cells and bacteria are life too.

Yes, but they don't have the potential to grow into a human so I don't think that matters.

Originally Posted by photon

There's no way to draw a line because there's no line to be drawn. It's like looking at colours on a prism and trying to say where one colour ends and another begins. I can point to one colour and say this is definitely green (a blastula isn't a person), and point to another and say this is definitely blue (there's no difference between 5 minutes before birth and 5 minutes after birth), but I can't point at something and say exactly where it changes from one to the other.

You can't say life/not life or human/not human because those attributes are not adequate to describe what's trying to be described.

But without any doubt fertilization is the beginning of human life.

Originally Posted by photon

It's a complicated involvement of many different factors.. viability, how much suffering is experienced, how much suffering can be experienced, self awareness, etc.

I don't think there can be any absolute answer, other than earlier is better.. and the vast majority abortions take place quite early (like 91% before 12 weeks I think I read in one UK stat).

I don't think there can be an absolute answer either, but I'm surprised at how dismissive people are of Calgaryborn's responses. He's raised many good points in this thread - how can you guys be so sure of your pro-choice stance given how good the arguments are on the pro-life side?

I pretty much only listen to liberal media and my experience with pro-lifers are the nutballs on the news that attack doctors/clinics and embarrass/berate women on their way into the clinic. Actually reading their view put forth in a calm, rational way has been pretty enlightening.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Men have to pay higher auto insurance premiums, and I am told that that is not discriminatory. How would this be any different?

Men pay higher insurance premiums based on evidence that they are higher risk, or at least that's my impression of the rationale. There's also no state action involved in an insurance company setting premium rates, which removes it from constiutional scrutiny (at least in terms of the equal protection clause) from the start.

I don't know that this argument would be a winner, and I'm definitely not the eprson who would be crafting a winning argument in this area, but there's certainly an argument to be made. State action that discriminates against a protected class gets a strict scrutiny review, so the odds would be stacked against the state should it get to that point.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I really think most Canadians would get behind some protection for the child after 5 or 6 months. That wouldn't satisfy me or most of the pro-life crowd but, it would be better than what we have now.

Sometimes difficult questions have to be address. Ignoring the unborn is what Canadians are doing now.

I actually think that would satisfy most of the pro-life crowd.

[Yasa]

Originally Posted by valo403

Men pay higher insurance premiums based on evidence that they are higher risk, or at least that's my impression of the rationale. There's also no state action involved in an insurance company setting premium rates, which removes it from constiutional scrutiny (at least in terms of the equal protection clause) from the start.

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.

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by Thor

Absolutely intrusive legislation IF there is no medical reason for it. Sounds like its used solely for the purpose of trying to convince the woman out of her decision.

All very reasonable if medically necessary for her to have the sonogram.

I don't pretend to be a doctor and I'm assuming you aren't either. Therefore I can't say if they would be doing an ultrasound with or without the law anyway. I would think it would be done as part of the professionals due diligence to make sure the abortion would go smoothly but that's peer speculation on my part. Maybe I should ask my wife (who is a physician) her thoughts on that when I go home.

Update: I did check into the ultrasound and it sounds like an ultrasound is a standard operating procedure to for an abortion to determine gestational age and because gestational age determines the exact procedure, and whether or not the clinic can even do it. Sidenote: I'm not a doctor nor do I even have a clue what I just said but it sounds like ultrasounds are kind of required to properly perfom an abortion anyway.

Originally Posted by Thor

Not reasonable, big government intruding itself into the vagina of women

Okay I'm confused. That portion provided exceptions for women in those situations to not have the explanation etc. Don't know what that has to do with big government.

Originally Posted by Thor

Which is whats wrong with this legislation. You approach this from the side of hoping this dissuades her to drop the abortion, while the rest of us see it as another attempt to pressure women out of an abortion by the pro life lobby.

The fact she has to have a sonogram, by the way which is done by a trans vaginal probe is stepping beyond what a government should legislate. Its not the job of government to step in here, she has the legal right, she shouldn't be forced to have the sonogram unless there is a medically important reason, other than to help dissuade the woman.

But since you approach this from a religious viewpoint will either of us change our minds or change each others?

See you assume that the religious viewpoint is the biggest factor in my argument here, when that isn't a fact. Does it have an impact, yes, because I don't think innocent human being should be murdered. Do I hope the description of the development of the baby would influence the womans decision yes. But that's more because I think that it is relevant information to what she is going to have done. Again why is giving this description (relevant information) considered an obsticle. Are you worried that the women won't have an abortion because she knows that a child has a heartbeat, and arms and legs are forming?

As for the type of ultrasound again, I'm not a doctor so I don't know what type of ultrasound is done. Do you know for a fact that it is always trans vaginal probe or is this based upon circumstances?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I really think most Canadians would get behind some protection for the child after 5 or 6 months.

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

Originally Posted by Sliver

Yes, but they don't have the potential to grow into a human so I don't think that matters.

Human skin cells do.

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.

Originally Posted by Sliver

But without any doubt fertilization is the beginning of human life.

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

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

Originally Posted by Sliver

how can you guys be so sure of your pro-choice stance given how good the arguments are on the pro-life side?

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.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by valo403

Men pay higher insurance premiums based on evidence that they are higher risk, or at least that's my impression of the rationale. There's also no state action involved in an insurance company setting premium rates, which removes it from constiutional scrutiny (at least in terms of the equal protection clause) from the start.

I don't know that this argument would be a winner, and I'm definitely not the eprson who would be crafting a winning argument in this area, but there's certainly an argument to be made. State action that discriminates against a protected class gets a strict scrutiny review, so the odds would be stacked against the state should it get to that point.

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.