I don't know. I do know that using abortion as a form of contraception is at best irresponsible it's not unheard of for a woman to have had 3-4 abortions before they are 21 years old.
On the notion that men should have zero say I strongly disagree with this, once a baby is born a man is instantly held accountable for child support but somehow has no say on abortion?
Since you can’t force someone to carry a child isn’t the equality argument allowing men to abort their parental responsibility.
It's always an easy argument to make when you make it about the woman. But again, I'll caution there is an unborn fetus there that doesn't have a voice in the matter, and thus, needs the laws on gestational age to protect it at a certain point. This thread is basically to discuss that point.
Yeah but that's not what I'm disputing. I'm saying the potential father shouldn't really have say in the matter because what those implications mean for society as a whole.
guns: "if we ban them, people will still find a way to get them and the purely illegal landscape is way more unsafe"
abortions: "ban them! coat hangers aren't all that bad"
__________________
"This has been TheScorpion's shtick for years. All these hot takes, clickbait nonsense just to feed his social media algorithms." –Tuco
I'm cool with abortions, even late-term. If the parent can't or doesn't want to be a parent, then this child is ####ed from the beginning, because I believe there are crucial formative bonding moments between mother and child when the child is out that can dramatically form behavioral patterns and emotions. Kids need that, blood mother or otherwise.
I'd be down for late-term abortions to go through a foster parent matching program first though, to see if there are any folks who would want to adopt a newborn (for various reasons of their own), and the aborting parent is cool with it (pending no health complications). Since I'm not a parent, not sure if that already exists. However, I wouldn't stand in the way of aborting late-term either.
The heartbeat thing doesn't really do it for me, that's just an emotional vice because you can hear it. Maybe the brain is a better measure to go by if we're going to pick organs to get political over.
The National total has decreased since 2011 from 108,844 to 94,030.
Based on the total number of 94,030 reported abortions, an estimated 91% are done by 12 weeks.
the estimated percentage of abortions at 21+ weeks is 0.66 percent.
Interesting stats, thanks. I'm pro-choice to a point, hopefully with more education and subsidized contraceptives we can keep bringing that number down to zero, that's the dream. As it stands right now I can live with those numbers although even .66% at 21+ weeks is too much for me that's still either 621 babies that should be born or 621 abortions that should have been performed much much earlier (barring medical complications that may have come up).
Abortion is still illegal in New South Wales Even the bogans in Queensland got around to legislating it last year.
I’ve always been pro choice but my position was really solidified after having my daughter. Seeing the full scope of pregnancy with the sickness, health risks, and stress followed by the trauma and irreversible damage caused by giving birth, and finally the even more stressful post natal period it confirmed to me that no one should be forced to go through this against their will.
I consider a woman giving birth and raising a child to be an amazing sacrifice that deserves our praise. If another woman decides she doesn’t want to make that sacrifice for any reason it is her choice and she has done nothing wrong.
__________________
The masses of humanity have always had to surf.
The Following User Says Thank You to FireGilbert For This Useful Post:
It's always an easy argument to make when you make it about the woman. But again, I'll caution there is an unborn fetus there that doesn't have a voice in the matter, and thus, needs the laws on gestational age to protect it at a certain point. This thread is basically to discuss that point.
Damn man, I hate playing the parent card (as much as I hate people playing the woman card), but 22 weeks is insane. Its a full on person at that point. Look at the devastation that parents go through when they lose children at that point. (Heck, for a relevent example, look at what Evander Kane went through at just 26 weeks). The kid is starting to kick and punch around.
That and even further late term abortions is exactly why people are starting to push for even early cutoffs given these late term abortions (again, non-medical) are insanity in my view.
This is 22 weeks.
If you hate playing the parent card so much, then quit playing it. I'm a parent too, to an amazing kid who I couldn't imagine my life without, and will have another within the next few weeks. Abortion was never a thought for me with either kid, and yet all being a parent (and seeing the hardships of pregnancy and parenting) has done for me is solidify my opinion that people should get to have abortions if and when they want to (hell, as many times as they want to too, and yes, even at 22 weeks). There's nothing about being a parent that inherently makes you more pro-life (or pro-choice), so it's not even a good card to play.
Interesting stats, thanks. I'm pro-choice to a point, hopefully with more education and subsidized contraceptives we can keep bringing that number down to zero, that's the dream. As it stands right now I can live with those numbers although even .66% at 21+ weeks is too much for me that's still either 621 babies that should be born or 621 abortions that should have been performed much much earlier (barring medical complications that may have come up).
621 is .11% (1/1000) of babies born in Alberta. That doesn’t seem like an unreasonably high medical necessity rate. For example about 1% of pregnancies end with a still birth. Without data to show the number of these that are medically unnecessary I don’t think the numbers suggest a problem.
621 is .011% (1/1000) of babies born in Alberta. That doesn’t seem like an unreasonably high medical necessity rate. For example about 1% of pregnancies end with a still birth. Without data to show the number of these that are medically unnecessary I don’t think the numbers suggest a problem.
621 is from the .66% on the 94k national abortions, not just Alberta. I'll fully allow that some of those may have been medically necessary as I said in my post, but above that I'd like to see that number be zero.
Interesting stats, thanks. I'm pro-choice to a point, hopefully with more education and subsidized contraceptives we can keep bringing that number down to zero, that's the dream. As it stands right now I can live with those numbers although even .66% at 21+ weeks is too much for me that's still either 621 babies that should be born or 621 abortions that should have been performed much much earlier (barring medical complications that may have come up).
I'd be pretty surprised if almost all of those 621 weren't medically recommend in some capacity or another, that's really not a crazy number of extreme risk pregnancies over the 8 years.
621 is from the .66% on the 94k national abortions, not just Alberta. I'll fully allow that some of those may have been medically necessary as I said in my post, but above that I'd like to see that number be zero.
Yeah I screwed my numbers by comparing to Alberta’s broth rate. My comparison though was to the number of live births. In Canada you get 385,000 live births so 621 being abortions is about .16% of live births.
So if you have a still birth rate of 1% it doesn’t seem unreasonable to have a medically necessary abortion rate of .16%. So the number of abortions of convenience here are likely a very low %
God I hate this argument. It's all the left pushes. LET THE WOMEN DECIDE. Well guess what, this isn't your life you're taking, its the unborn's, so we damn well better have some guidelines on cut-off points and then, sure, within that, leave it to the woman and her doctor.
Not only that, but we are sticking our heads in the sand if we think that there aren't cultures WITHIN Canada that prioritize gender selection, and the father will force the mother to have an abortion as a result.
This will also become a more common problem with our rise in immigration levels.
Doubtful since it's a term originated/invented by religion.
As for my stance on abortion, as much as I dislike it when it's used as a form of birth control I still can't come to grips with forcing a woman to have a baby if she doesn't want too. It's her body and nobody and certainly no government should have a right to it.
The tragedy is for Kane, the mother and his family, all of whom were happily expecting a child.
No one is arguing that abortion isn't sad, or hard, or even moral. It's just a reality that has to be dealt with the safest way possible. And as noted, 90+% are done before 12 weeks. So is it really worth arguing about this 10%? Most of which are health related reasons?
And, for future advice, I'd probably avoid comparing miscarriages to abortions in actual settings where people can see and hear you.
But it is not a tragedy when a mother decides to get an abortion at 26 weeks and the father has literally no say in the matter? You made it pretty clear in the first post that it sure as hell isn't an easy situation to deal with.
I don't have all the answers either because no matter what I think it is pretty clear that limiting abortions will not necessarily result in 'less' abortions. I think it is pretty clear what will reduce abortion rates across the board.
I just find it really bizarre that there are people who can't see the common sense in creating a line in the sand without thinking everything will turn into a slippery slope and suddenly abortion will be completely illegal again.
From a completely legal perspective I can make a strong argument that at SOME POINT the fetus is developed enough to be considered a human being. The exact date is always thrown around, but most people will agree that it is sometime before full term is reached. And if we agree on that, from a legal perspective can you not say that the baby will at some point before it is born have the rights that we grant all our humans to not be killed? Especially not be killed by a state sanctioned law?
It is the same reason I adamantly oppose the death penalty. I do not believe the state should have the right to execute its own citizens. No matter what they do I believe we grant them the right to 'live', and I don't think you can make a constitutional argument that the right to live can ever be taken away from them regardless of what heinous acts they preform, i.e. killing someone else.
And in regards to the bodily anatomy argument that Roe vs Wade uses, I asked this in the other thread and I'll ask it here again. If the pregnant mother dies on the hospital bed and the doctors feel the fetus is developed far enough that it would have a chance to survive, can they operate on the mother without permission to try and save the baby? Because wittynickname is saying that unless specifically stated, they cannot just like they cannot take your organs without your permission.
Should they be allowed too? Does the baby have the right to live? Or did the mother dying remove that right as well? Who is deciding there? Because if you are saying the doctor should be decide, well then we are right back to square one.
And there were posts in the other thread by GreenLantern saying the doctor should have the right to decide NOT to preform an abortion if they feel like the mother is doing it for certain reasons (gender, health, father forcing her, etc) which is strange because all of a sudden the rights of the mother don't matter anymore? Suddenly then the baby has a right?
To me the further this debate moves along, the more it becomes a confusing mess because both sides don't want to admit that the most sensible solution involves some serious compromise.
Not only that, but we are sticking our heads in the sand if we think that there aren't cultures WITHIN Canada that prioritize gender selection, and the father will force the mother to have an abortion as a result.
This will also become a more common problem with our rise in immigration levels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
But it is not a tragedy when a mother decides to get an abortion at 26 weeks and the father has literally no say in the matter? You made it pretty clear in the first post that it sure as hell isn't an easy situation to deal with.
Spoiler!
I don't have all the answers either because no matter what I think it is pretty clear that limiting abortions will not necessarily result in 'less' abortions. I think it is pretty clear what will reduce abortion rates across the board.
I just find it really bizarre that there are people who can't see the common sense in creating a line in the sand without thinking everything will turn into a slippery slope and suddenly abortion will be completely illegal again.
From a completely legal perspective I can make a strong argument that at SOME POINT the fetus is developed enough to be considered a human being. The exact date is always thrown around, but most people will agree that it is sometime before full term is reached. And if we agree on that, from a legal perspective can you not say that the baby will at some point before it is born have the rights that we grant all our humans to not be killed? Especially not be killed by a state sanctioned law?
It is the same reason I adamantly oppose the death penalty. I do not believe the state should have the right to execute its own citizens. No matter what they do I believe we grant them the right to 'live', and I don't think you can make a constitutional argument that the right to live can ever be taken away from them regardless of what heinous acts they preform, i.e. killing someone else.
And in regards to the bodily anatomy argument that Roe vs Wade uses, I asked this in the other thread and I'll ask it here again. If the pregnant mother dies on the hospital bed and the doctors feel the fetus is developed far enough that it would have a chance to survive, can they operate on the mother without permission to try and save the baby? Because wittynickname is saying that unless specifically stated, they cannot just like they cannot take your organs without your permission.
Should they be allowed too? Does the baby have the right to live? Or did the mother dying remove that right as well? Who is deciding there? Because if you are saying the doctor should be decide, well then we are right back to square one.
And there were posts in the other thread by GreenLantern saying the doctor should have the right to decide NOT to preform an abortion if they feel like the mother is doing it for certain reasons (gender, health, father forcing her, etc) which is strange because all of a sudden the rights of the mother don't matter anymore? Suddenly then the baby has a right?
To me the further this debate moves along, the more it becomes a confusing mess because both sides don't want to admit that the most sensible solution involves some serious compromise.
I'm really not the great drum banger for abortions, I don't think there is a point in my life were I would not have offered any help or support I could to remove the need. But you guys are making up problems that don't exist. Gender ID is like 20 weeks at the earliest, if only 600 abortions happened after 21 weeks, were probably down to like 100 by 26 weeks.
Accepting that late term medical abortions need to and will continue to happen, because it is no longer a risk we are willing too put on mothers as a society, this is not some culture polemic raging across our country. You two are realistically talking about 10s of abortions / year.
I would argue the 2 best steps you can take to prevent these 10s of late term abortions each are to remove the stigma from and increase the access to birth control and early abortion.
I think first we protect the rights of 100,000 women and protect the lives of hundreds of women who are in a high risk situation. Once that is accepted, then maybe we can turn the conversation towards that half dozen near viable Canadians who legitimately falling into the parameters you are setting. But while protecting the rights of these six people is the thin wedge to oppressing 100,000 others and killing hundreds women, I don't think its a group we should offer support to.
But for many Indian immigrants who express a strong desire for sons, the study found, the practice of sex selection remains entrenched. Women who already have two female children are most at risk for abortions in the second trimester, when parents can learn the sex of the fetus. The study builds on previous research led by Dr. Urquia that found a deficit in Canada of more than 4,400 girls over two decades.
The latest study shows that women born in India who already have two daughters gave birth to 192 baby boys in Ontario for every 100 girls. The sex ratios are so distorted, they cannot be explained by natural causes, Dr. Urquia said. Across the globe, by comparison, the odds of having a boy over a girl are slightly higher: 107 boys for every 100 girls.
Gender can be determined at 18 weeks so may not show up it the stats referenced above.
Tough to get statistical evidence of something that obviously won't be reported, but it doesn't mean it isn't happening. There is enough evidence to suggest that it is a bigger problem than many people in this thread think it is.
Those are the two questions I am not seeing being answered properly. Do you think the mother should ever not have the right to get an abortion like she can right now in Canada, and at what age are we providing the right of human life to the baby.
If you want to argue that the woman has the right over her complete bodily anatomy, including organs, the fetus, etc, then you are saying the baby is not human, nor has the rights afforded to all humans (in our country at least) until it is born. And that goes directly against the scientific way of looking at it, as it has been proven that the baby can exist outside the womb before full term is reached, and smarter people than all of us will even place the date of when it is considered human much earlier along in the pregnancy. With incubators what is the actual age? 7 months?
So if from a scientific perspective you can say that the fetus is indeed capable of surviving on its own before full term, then it should be afforded the protection we afford all people. The right to live, which brings in the legality of it.
However that does not speak to the right of the mother, which does exist, and how it can be interpreted, in terms of her choice to get an abortion at any term before the baby is born.
To me it isn't as black and white as people like peter12 and others suggest. Not from a scientific or from a legal perspective. At best I think it is murky and confusing, and many who label the other side make it even worse.
Regardless, at the end of the day there is only ONE way to reduce or eliminate abortion, and I think that is the goal we should all be working towards.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
So following the fetus viability argument if we advance technology to the point where the fetus is viable at implantation would you support outlawing all forms of abortion?
Or if you had a viability threshold for abortion would a women be able to demand being induced or get a c-section for a 22 week fetus. That seems like a reasonable compromise. However does the state want 600 additional premature babies a year with complications.
Even the bogans in Queensland got around to legislating it last year. 
