Abortion...

[DAMON789]

dont infringe on MY RIGHT to CHOOSE

What do you think killing a defenceless person is. Do you think that a child exists only when you name it.

I dont think it should be used as birth control but in some instances it should
be the WOMANS choice.
Are you married?

 

[feminista]

Booboo:

what gives you the right to decide when a fetus is a person , that seems to be your only reasoning but I don't think you have the authority to make that decision.

you said that. I have never offered any explanation of when a fetus is a person because a fetus isn't a person. I am only reciting the legal status. i don't think I have any special authority to state this.

what i have a right to do is decide if i would remain pregnant should i become pregnant. I have taken as many steps as i can to ensure that doesn't happen.

 

[A-ROD]

For or Against........

I think it should be the choice of the people that are involved.

 

[slew foot]

For or Against........

I think it should be the choice of the people that are involved.

but there are those doorknobs out there that think its ok for the government to tell us waht to do with our bodies and what our choices should be.

 

[booboobear]

I dont think it should be used as birth control but in some instances it should
be the WOMANS choice.
Are you married?

I can't possibly fathom why my marriage status would be applicable.
If it is wrong to take a life what gives a women the choice because she happened to get pregnant . Rape aside it doesn't take brains to get
pregnant . I think in 95 % of the cases it is used exactly as birth control.
If a fetus has heart lungs and a brain and all the body parts why exactly is it ok to take a life.

 

[danmand]

hat gives a women the choice because she happened to get pregnant . Rape aside it doesn't take brains to get
pregnant . I think in 95 % of the cases it is used exactly as birth control.
If a fetus has heart lungs and a brain and all the body parts why exactly is it ok to take a life.

The little concept that it is her body. You are very fortunate to be a man and not have the risk of being sentenced to 9 months of pregnancy because of an error in judgment or malfunction of a device. My guess is you would think differently if you were a women.

 

[booboobear]

The little concept that it is her body. You are very fortunate to be a man and not have the risk of being sentenced to 9 months of pregnancy because of an error in judgment or malfunction of a device. My guess is you would think differently if you were a women.

That is a cop out , there are millions of women who don't believe in abortion.
Once she conceives it is not her body alone and the fact that " an error in judgement " does not necessarily give her the right to take a life. It's easy to pretend that it is not a person so it is ok to kill it . I am not 100 % against abortion but after seeing my nephew born the thought of his life being taken away after anything more than a month I personally find hard to take.

 

[Quest4Less]

Choice...

Just to be clear - I'm PRO-CHOICE... My last post about murder was trying to get Oil-Please to see he was contradicting himself.

He stated abortion was = murder, but then said if a woman was raped it would be okay... So is it murder or not?

I think not.

 

[gramage]

everyone defines life their own way, but my opinion is a child is not alive until it can live and breath on it's own. Until then it is a part of the pregnant womans body and I do not believe the government has the right to force a woman to go through the physical/mental hardships of pregnancy the way this law would force them too. Add the fact that they have no sympathy for rape victims and I cannot see how this can be considered anything but an unjust law and an attack on individual freedom. also they 5 year jail term for any doctor who violates this law is excessive.

Sad thing is I think the supreme court could very easily allow this law to stand. with the outlawing and demonizing of "partial birth" abortions and I believe a law was past that essentially considers the murder of a pregnant woman two murders, Bush has done everything he can to declare a fetus a person without risking his approval rating, and those changes will possibly sway a now far more conservative court.

 

[feminista]

for those opposed to abortion are you also opposed to emergency contraception and other contraceptives that may permit a fertilized egg to be expelled?

If you don't allow females to terminate and prevent pregnancy then U must advocate enforced pregnancy. She does not have autonomy. The state controls her body (and life). What should the state do with a pregnant women who wants to abort? Should she be restrained to incubate the zygote/embyo/fetus until it can survive on it's own?

What if an actual person had a fatal disease where the only cure was to surgically hook them up to another person to use the others blood and organs until they were well enuf to survive on their own. Would that ever be permitted if no one was willing to host the dying person?

Y not?

 

[Dead2Parrot]

Because its MURDER!!!!!!

This is not a case of murder. It is a case of personal choice and having the right to do with one's body as one wishes. The idea of FORCING SOMEONE TO BEAR A CHILD AGAINST ONE'S WILL is absolutely unjust. Anyone who calls himself a humaine person couldn't possibly see this any other way!

 

[james t kirk]

I have one question to the "ban abortion" crowd.

What do you plan on doing with all these unwanted children?

Who is going to look after them?

When you come up with a viable answer for that, I will listen to your arguement, till then, if you think that their "parents" will look after them, you are dreaming in techni-colour.

 

[booboobear]

I have one question to the "ban abortion" crowd.

What do you plan on doing with all these unwanted children?

Who is going to look after them?

When you come up with a viable answer for that, I will listen to your arguement, till then, if you think that their "parents" will look after them, you are dreaming in techni-colour.

Have you ever heard of an adoption waiting list.

 

[booboobear]

for those opposed to abortion are you also opposed to emergency contraception and other contraceptives that may permit a fertilized egg to be expelled?

If you don't allow females to terminate and prevent pregnancy then U must advocate enforced pregnancy. She does not have autonomy. The state controls her body (and life). What should the state do with a pregnant women who wants to abort? ?

Y not?

Y ou seem to want it both ways , if the state says a fetus is not human you agree and jump on that as an excuse to allow you to destroy a fetus.
On the other hand if the govt decides it's illegal you cry that the women should have the choice.

You have a choice to get pregnant or not , now in the case of rape I would say terminate the pregnancy asap.

 

[booboobear]

This is not a case of murder. It is a case of personal choice and having the right to do with one's body as one wishes. The idea of FORCING SOMEONE TO BEAR A CHILD AGAINST ONE'S WILL is absolutely unjust. Anyone who calls himself a humaine person couldn't possibly see this any other way!

You don't call it murder because you don't consider the fetus a human , well what is it exactly. No one forces someone o bear a child against their will unless it's rape in which case it should be allowed asap.
What happened to the free will not to get pregnant , it's too easy now to deny any responsibilty before the fact and afterwards it's " IT'S NOT HUMAN AND IT'S MY BODY SO LETS DESTROY IT "

All these great minds determine for themselves what they consider human as if they know while in reality they just want to ease their concience. Using the reasoning of some posters who agree with abortion since a 2 month old child is incapable of feeding or living withou help it would be ok to kill that child if the mother decides she doesn't want to be forced to raise.
If you want control of " your body " then control it before you get pregnant .

 

[Diode]

The idea of FORCING SOMEONE TO BEAR A CHILD AGAINST ONE'S WILL is absolutely unjust. Anyone who calls himself a humaine person couldn't possibly see this any other way!

Sorry friend , I call myself humane, and I don't want to force anybody to do anything. BUT we all have responsiblities, and when a woman gets pregnant, her responsiblity is to see the child to term.
No, we cant lock up people who might endanger their unborn child, but we DO as a civilized society take born children away from parents who might cause them harm.

Ask yourself this question: Is it at all possible that life begins at conception? Is it at all possible that the unborn person has a soul? Is it at all possible that an abortion at any time in gestation, may be elliminating a life.
If there is any possiblity that life begins at conception, I think thinking people MUST err on the side of caution.

Now, I understand the reasons people may want an abortion. Children are a lifetime commitment of hard work, stress and some failures.
I also understand, that women go through an incredible life altering expierience in bringing a baby to term. It's an great testament to all women who have become mothers....or died trying to give birth...

But let me offer another idea. As a society, we should encourage all pregnant women to give birth, and if they belive that a better life could be given to the child by another family, encourage adoption.

I have seen good, honest, devoted, loving families who can't have children of their own, cry at the thought of never having a baby to love. Seen them torn to threads by the buraucracy at the adoption agencies because there are just not enough babies.

Abortion is a net negative. Always. We should move away from this selfish approach, and see un-born babies as the greatest communal asset we have.

I doubt anybody could equate an un-born baby with a tumor.
If you can, just have a look at an ultrasound, at about 10 weeks.....
That's a real, live independant human in there.
They deserve to live.

 

[Diode]

for those opposed to abortion are you also opposed to emergency contraception and other contraceptives that may permit a fertilized egg to be expelled?

If you don't allow females to terminate and prevent pregnancy then U must advocate enforced pregnancy. She does not have autonomy. The state controls her body (and life). What should the state do with a pregnant women who wants to abort? Should she be restrained to incubate the zygote/embyo/fetus until it can survive on it's own?

What if an actual person had a fatal disease where the only cure was to surgically hook them up to another person to use the others blood and organs until they were well enuf to survive on their own. Would that ever be permitted if no one was willing to host the dying person?

Y not?

I don't want to force anybody to do anything. But, in fact we as a society are "forced" to pay a wack of our salarys to assist other Canadians.
If not we go to jail.
The question about being hooked up to a dying person, is quite frankly a bit out of site.
However, there are rumblings about negative-option, or "forced" organ donation programs. I even read a story about providing piority healthcare to Canadians who tick "organ doner" on their DL.
Maybe it's time to explore this.
By the way, I'm typically a libertarian. But I really think the it's impossible to prove that new life does not start at conception.
It may not be easy, but we have to be sure, we arn't terminating life.

 

[Diode]

A final question. Why is abortion a listed service on the OHIP books?
And why is only very basic fertility treatment covered?
And why are we so anti-private medicine in Canada, but hold Mogentaler up as some great defender of womanhood? ( His clincs are private, you know!?)

 

[fuji]

It might help to highlight where the disagreement is, as this "debate" will rapidly decend into name calling otherwise.

First, I think everyone probably agrees that a woman does have a right to exercise control over her body. Even the most rabid anti-abortionist would agree about this, if they were honest about it. They certainly agree about it in practically every other situation, so this is not the issue. Women DO plainly have this right.

Second, one of the most contentious points, is whether or not a fetus actually has any rights. The two sides tend to disagree most often over this point, with one side saying that at least up to a certain point a fetus is NOT a person and has no rights; and obviously the other side insisting that from the very moment of conception the fetus ought to be considered a full fledged human being with all the rights.

Third, even if you accept the fetus has rights, that generates a conflict. The rights of one person to control their own body. The rights of the other person (if the fetus is one) to life. These rights are in opposition over abortion, and then the question becomes, which right "trumps" the other? It's a very, very hard question to answer.

Above I have tried to be impartial and just lay out the framework of the debate. I have my opinion on this, and my own answers to those questions, and they are below:

I am pro-choice, and the reason why is because I do not personally think that a fetus is a human being, at least not at the moment of conception. Maybe it is by the third trimester. I don't know. I certainly know that other people feel differently, but for myself, for my own judgement of right and wrong, I do not have a problem with aborting a fetus in the first few months of pregnancy because, personally, I simply don't think that's a person yet.

Second, in cases where the fetus IS a person, does the right to life really trump the right to control your own body? Let me ask an interesting question. Suppose that I were dying of a disease and the only way to save my life would be to get a significant infusion of blood. You were the only viable donor: No-one else's blood is compatible with mine, at least no-one available today. Can I FORCE you to undergo the transfusion process, to save my life?

If I cannot force you to undergo this process, then apparently your right to control your own body trumps my right to life.

Another interesting angle to consider: A fetus depends on the mother living her life "properly". Its health would be harmed if she smoked or drank or took drugs. Ought a mother to be charged with assault if she does any of these harmful things during pregnancy? If a fetus is a person with ALL the rights of a person, then in addition to a right to life, it has a right to security of person, that is violated whenever the mother "abuses" the fetus by, say, drinking alchohol. We do not generally consider these things to be criminal: We consider them to be stupid, we try and educate pregnant women not to smoke or drink, but we don't charge them with a felony if they do. In other words, in all other cases, we either do not extend the rights of a person to the fetus, or we consider the mothers right to drink and smoke to be the superior right.

That's basically my thinking on the matter. At least initially I don't even think a fetus is a person, and so I don't think it has any rights. Later when it does have rights, I do not think that its rights necessarily trump the right to control your own body. Although, in the latter case, the fact that there are two conflicting interests does imply to me that everyone should make an effort to minimize the harm to each party.

For the record, how someone got pregnant, whether it was their choice, their "fault" or not, I don't think any of that is relevant here. At all. It's a question of conflicting rights, not a question of whose fault it is.

 

[booboobear]

I am pro-choice, and the reason why is because I do not personally think that a fetus is a human being, at least not at the moment of conception. Maybe it is by the third trimester. I don't know
If I cannot force you to undergo this process, then apparently your right to control your own body trumps my right to life.

Another interesting angle to consider: A fetus depends on the mother living her life "properly". Its health would be harmed if she smoked or drank or took drugs. Ought a mother to be charged with assault if she does any of these harmful things during pregnancy? If a fetus is a person with ALL the rights of a person, then in addition to a right to life, it has a right to security of person, that is violated whenever the mother "abuses" the fetus by, say, drinking alchohol. We do not generally consider these things to be criminal: We consider them to be stupid, we try and educate pregnant women not to smoke or drink, but we don't charge them with a felony if they do. .

Pro choice is the modern term for I don't want to be responsible.
FIRSTof all exercise you choice before you get pregnant once you get pregnant it's not your body alone sorry that argument doesn't wash. The fetus depends on the mother for life but not by choice. Some judges have considered charging mothers for taking drugs or excessive drinking , mothers that do that prove that prove that it doesn't take brains to be pregnant .
This type of mother shouldn't have a choice on anything . A fetus or future child deserves a right to a healthy future.