Who said the abortion debate is dead? Just check out yesterday's comments, and you will see that the only ones silent about this story are politicians and unborn babies.
The fracas has helped me to reduce the discussion to two salient questions:
1. Should there continue to be absolutely no legal restrictions at all on abortions at any stage in Canada, up to and including partial-birth abortions?
2. If we continue with the status quo, should all abortions be publicly funded on demand with no exception, no matter how many times a woman decides to use this as a form of birth control?
Regarding the legal question, some people have suggested that if it is true that life begins at the moment of conception, then we can't even condone abortion with regards to rape, etc. However, I personally feel that removing some injustice is better than not removing any. There is no question that a baby minutes away from delivery can feel pain. To have his head crushed, or scissors stuck in his neck at this point is far worse than destroying a two-week old embryo. I would prefer not to see any abortion, but sometimes a compromise is necessary.
Another argument used to support abortion on demand is that a woman has the right to control her own body. What about the baby's right to control her body?
Secondly, if we have to live with this travesty, why do we have to pay for it? Again, in some cases, I can see the need; especially if the mothers' life is threatened. But if a woman has repeated abortions due to poor planning, should we have to cough up the money?
Anyone who has valid statistics on any of this is more than welcome to submit them in comments. Please show the source. Thanks.
You may think I am beating my head against a brick wall here. However, I think that the feminists have done such a good job selling Canadian society a bill of goods on this subject, that we are all afraid to discuss it in public.
At least democracy lives on in blogs.
67 comments:
would like to hear from some of the women who have gone through the procedure to tell it like it is, and give us an intimate view of what it is like to have an abortion. My feeling is that it is painful, that it is not only the baby that feels pain, but forcing the womb open to insert instruments in, seems to me to be a painful procedure. And after the first experience did it put them off from having another? How did they deal with the guilt? What were their methods? This issue has so many ramifications over the course of a life! Let’s hear from you.
Yes, that would be very interesting. Also would love to hear from people who gave up their babies for adoption; and people who were adopted themselves.
Wow, reading this post makes me want to cry when you describe a pre-birth abortion. You make some excellent points. You're right that it is better to at least remove some injustice.
Your statement, "you will see that the only ones silent about this story are politicians and unborn babies" is very powerful and poignant.
"What about the baby's right to control her body?"
A fetus cannot survive outside of the mother's womb. Thus, it's existence is that of a parasite in nature. By the same thinking, what about the right of a cold virus to control it's own existence? Many viruses contracted by humans cannot exist outside of the human body.
What about the right of sperm to control it's own existence? Do you also favour heavy regulation of masturbation to prevent the massacre of sperm?
Essentially, what cannot survive outside of a woman's body is entirely within the realm of responsibility of the woman. If we start limiting a woman's choice in regards to the fetus, where does the madness end?
Thomas @ thelongwalk.ca
Oh, boy. Things are getting heated up again!!!
Thomas, you are so far out to lunch I don't know where to begin. You're comparing a human pre-born infant to a sperm and to a cold virus??? You need to brush up on your biology.
"what cannot survive outside of a woman's body is entirely within the realm of responsibility of the woman":
Thomas, it is legal in Canada to perform an abortion up to and including the moment of birth just as long as the head has not been born yet. I would consider a fully developed full-term baby quite able to live on his own, thank you very much.
And you talk about "madness"? We are living it right now!!!
Thomas, I agree with Joanne - Your arguments don't make sense!
I find myself at a disadvantage, in that I've not had to make a decision on this question. However, if men can express quite strongly held opinions AND legislate for or against on the matter, I feel perfectly within my rights to express the following:
1. With all the different kinds of contraception available today, no woman can validly use the excuse of an "accidental" and therefore unplanned pregnancy, unless it's the result of rape. If fewer women engaged in casual sex, or if they wish to go that route, had a handy supply of condoms, maybe there wouldn't be so many unwanted pregnancies.
2. The "miracles" that we hear about in neo-natal care, where unbelievably tiny "preemies" survive against seemingly insurmountable odds, puts a lie to the argument that the fetus is just a blob of cells similar to a cold virus.
3. In Quebec alone, about 34 thousand abortions are performed yearly. I don't know how much each procedure costs; however, if one were to cost $500, that means Quebec spends 17 - count them - 17 million! a year on abortions.
4. Since a certain segment of the population will always argue that "it's a woman's right to choose" then the only thing opponents of abortion can do is to introduce some kind of legislation to stop funding abortions on demand.
If "pro-abortion" proponents want THEIR choice respected, they should also respect MY choice not to pay for it.
5. I cannot help but be revulsed by statements from some women about the abortions they've undergone. I recently heard a well-known Quebec personality discuss her motherhood, which was preceded by 4 abortions because she "was not ready" to become a mother, as it would have interfered with her career. And then she went on to laugh about the ones "que j'ai flushés" - the ones I flushed ....
6. I am against "active" abortion on principle, except in the case of therapeutic abortions, where the health of a mother is in danger and a procedure results in the death of the fetus.
However, let us remember that Mr. Harper stated his government would NOT introduce legislation on abortion & the question perhaps should be postponed for another day.
"3. In Quebec alone, about 34 thousand abortions are performed yearly. I don't know how much each procedure costs; however, if one were to cost $500, that means Quebec spends 17 - count them - 17 million! a year on abortions."
In Quebec alone, they performed about 34 thousand heart transplants yearly. I don't know how much each procedure costs; however, if one were to cost $500, that means Quebec spends 17 - count them - 17 million! a year on heart transplants.
It's a medical procedure Gabby, it costs money.
++++
"If "pro-abortion" proponents want THEIR choice respected, they should also respect MY choice not to pay for it."
If "pro-heart transplant' proponents want THIER choice respect, they should also respect MY choice not to pay for it.
You see where I'm going with this here Gabby?
Everything can be turned around. If this is a medical procedure in accordance with Health Canada, you will continue to pay for it, just like you will pay for heart transplants. I know that the thought of paying for someone else's medical procedures might offend you, but its how its going to go down.
And hey, my tax dollars pay for roads that I'll never drive on...so I get where your coming from.
Gabby - I agree with you on all points except the last:
"However, let us remember that Mr. Harper stated his government would NOT introduce legislation on abortion & the question perhaps should be postponed for another day."
This is EXACTLY why we should be talking about it now! Every politican in Canada is afraid to even say the word. Gabby, if we just sit back waiting for the politicians to do something, trust me, things will stay status quo, and we will be funding this sexual "mistake" antidote for eternity.
Hello, old friend Zac:
Yes, I see where you're going with this - nowhere.
To compare abortion with heart transplants - one designed to snuff out a life, the other to save a life - is totally illogical. I'm surprised at the simplistic argument.
"And hey, my tax dollars pay for roads that I'll never drive on...so I get where your coming from."
No, Zac, you'll NEVER get where I'm coming from. And to be quite honest, I really don't care whether you do or not. This question is one where no number of convincing, logical arguments will convince the Other.
And that is why, Joanne, I feel that perhaps it's a battle left for another time. Our society has already embarked on the proverbial "slippery slope" and it's too late to turn the tide at this time, with a minority government in place, in a country where the word "Conservative" - which used to designate one of two proud political parties instrumental in the building of this country - has become synonymous in certain quarters
with "evil incarnate," where the word "morals" brings up the question of "whose morals," as if they were "la soupe du jour" that one can choose to have or not, where one party claims that IT alone speaks for Canadian values, and all those who disagree with their point of view (if they have one they haven't stolen), well then, one is unCanadian - that's the message I heard from the Liberals during the last 2 elections.
Sorry for the long-winded rant, Joanne, and off topic too. Just a few more words, then I'm done for today.
I guess I've longed so much for the Conservatives to form the government that I would like their first mandate to go as smoothly as possible.
Zac: Quebec does 34,000 heart transplants per year? Where did you find the documentation for this contention? Ten hearts are harvested daily, for ten daily transplants? Or are a certain percentage of the procedures involving artificial hearts? In Quebec? You're not making this up are you? We're not allowed to make things up you know.
l.h.&k. TangoJuliette
Ok folks.
I was comparing legally mandated surgeries. Nothing to freak out about here folks.
Tango, I was copying Gabby's post. You'll notice that because it is word for word, with heart transplants where abortions was. Chill out my old friend.
"There is a point where people(men and women0 can make a responsible decicion to not get pregnant."
Always Vicki?
++++
"To compare abortion with heart transplants - one designed to snuff out a life, the other to save a life - is totally illogical. I'm surprised at the simplistic argument."
I was stating that since both are legal medical procedures, you cannot opt out of paying for someone's abortion, just as you cannot opt out of paying for someone's heart transplant.
++++
"This is EXACTLY why we should be talking about it now! Every politican in Canada is afraid to even say the word. Gabby, if we just sit back waiting for the politicians to do something, trust me, things will stay status quo, and we will be funding this sexual "mistake" antidote for eternity."
Please do Joanne, please, please, please make this a public debatable issue again. Please.
++++
"No, Zac, you'll NEVER get where I'm coming from"
Simply an analogy Gabby. No need to rear off the deep end. Take a deep breath, deep breath.
Quite Frankly people, it seems that we are in another stalemate. Unless we can come to an agreement where life begins (which is utterly impossible) this debate will have to wait for another day, as Gabby said.
But feel free to rip me apart. Here I'll start you off:
1) "Zac you are an iresponsible moron who knows nothing"
2) "Zac you are too young to understand this complex issue"
3) "Zac you show no class in bringing religion into this, have you no shame"
4) "Zac you facts are wrong, get a brain"
5) "Zac your thoughts are wrong, get a life"
6) "Zac your sarcastic comments are not welcome as this is an important issue"
7) "Zac your passionate appeal shows that you are a loser"
8) "Zac, I'm glad that you have the courage to dive into this weighty subject"...oh wait, never mind the last one.
abortion to poor zac...
discussion over joanne?
Gabby - Are you sure you're from QC? You make too much sense! I thought there were only a bunch of laissez-faire types there. Oh, Gabby, you know I'm just kidding you. I'm really glad you joined in. My pal Chuckercanuk is from Quebec: Conservative but pro-abortion and pro-gay. We Tories are a diverse mix.
You know, Zac, there are many more good and honorable causes that you could be fired up about. Fighting for better living conditions for natives, more funding for health care, environmental issues. Abortion should not be one of them. Think about it. Sounds as bad as "Catholic" Paul Martin trying to save his prime ministership by being the saviour of the abortion industry during the election. It's just sick and in such bad taste. I really admire your fortitude, but please pick a cause that is worthy!! It's just really sad that a young man such as yourself would argue about this just for the sake of arguing. And you're really grasping at straws with your analogies, my friend! I also wonder why, you as a male, are so vociferously defending this!
Trying my best to be kind! I, as a Conservative, know that as much as we would like, a woman's "right" to an abortion is here to stay. My point is that we need to educate women and give them other options than this sad way of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. Do you not believe that many of these women are haunted by this for the rest of their lives? Would they not feel better about letting their child go to a loving adoptive couple? I do believe we need restrictions and term limits on these late-term abortions for sure. Do you not agree with me on that one? I also never got a reply from any of you pro-abortion advocates on whether you agree with people in China aborting babies just because they are female. What say you on that?
I know that, at the end of the day, and at the end of my life one day, I will have a clean conscience on this matter. Gain some more life experience, have a family, then maybe you will have a slightly different perspective on this. I am speaking also as the mother of a Down Syndrome child (yes, the children that many people abort). Life is a precious gift, not one to be snuffed out.(I am guessing you are a young single). If I missed the mark here, then my apologies.
Joe Edmonton - Or a heart beat?
Soccermom - Wow! Awesome. I am humbled.
Joanne, I'm just really passionate about this. Can't help it!
"It's just really sad that a young man such as yourself would argue about this just for the sake of arguing."
soccermom, I never argue for the sake of arguing. I feel passionatly about this issue, just like equal rights for homosexuals, better living conditions for natives, more funding for health care, and environmental issues. I just know when I'm out gunned, so I retire to lick my wounds.
Zac, you're a good guy. Take care!
Soccermom - That was very eloquent. Thank you so much for posting it.
Vicki - You said something about taking responsibility. Right on. People like Zac are products of the Nanny state, unfortunately. They see individual needs as paramount, and that the state should always take care of them no matter what they do. Individual rights trump the greater good.
Zac, it's not your fault. You have been brought up with left-wing propaganda pummelled at you from every direction.
Oh boy, I can just imagine what kind of reaction this is going to get!
I think we chased them out of the corral, True Blue!
*LOL*! Soccermom! Thanks for your help. Poor Zac. He's actually an alright kid. Just a little misguided.
Well, I guess we'll call it a day then.
Yup, stuff to do! Have a good night!
Soccermom - You too. Give your little one a hug for me.
"Zac, it's not your fault. You have been brought up with left-wing propaganda pummelled at you from every direction.
Oh boy, I can just imagine what kind of reaction this is going to get!"
Yeah, that was very insulting Joanne. I'm not a product of a nanny state. I'm the product of countless hours in a library. I'm a progressive by choice, not by indoctrination.
Any by the way Joanne, I thought you might understand a bit considering the fight you had on your hand over a calgary grit the other day.
1 person who is very passionate about an issue, debating 7-10 others who are passionate about an issue is the wrong way to come to a conclusion. I leave now, not because I can't support my position, I just can't see any point of continuing tonight, under these circumstances.
" I see this as a responsibility issue.Zac..lame argument again...a heart transplant patient did not decide to be in a position to require a heart."
What about a hard cocaine user, smoker or overweight individual? They essentially gave themself heart problems. Do we pay for their transplant or not?
Thomas @ thelongwalk.ca
Sorry, Zac. I was saying that rather tongue-in-cheek, although it isn't a stretch to suggest that universities favour a leftist POV.
Having said that, you can still rise above the rhetoric, and think for yourself (hopefully).
Yes, I know exactly what it feels like to be attacked by a pack of wild wolves from the other side. I admire your courage. My wounds are still healing.
Gabby in QC said... "With all the different kinds of contraception available today, no woman can validly use the excuse of an "accidental" and therefore unplanned pregnancy, unless it's the result of rape."
Interesting that the abstinence crowd when preaching their message to teenagers are quick to point out to them that contraception is by no means an altogether reliable way to prevent becoming pregnant. And indeed they’re correct, it is not 100%. So accidental/unplanned pregnancies will and do occur outside of rape.
If "pro-abortion" proponents want THEIR choice respected, they should also respect MY choice not to pay for it.
How would that work, practically speaking? Perhaps a check box on your tax return with a corresponding deduction from the amount remitted to the government? Would the same principle apply to other government programs you happen not to support? You know, kind of an a la carte system where you select which programs you are willing to contribute your hard earned dollars to and those you are not.
Obviously that’s ridiculous. Government revenue collection doesn’t and simply cannot work in such a fashion. So as long as abortion is a legally recognized medical procedure within the scope of the Canada Health Act, your tax dollars are going to go towards covering their expense and you’ll just have to come to terms with the fact that you have no choice in the matter.
zac,
without getting in on the A word debate and just keeping it medical ok...
pregnancy won't kill a mom (very unlikely anyways) and having a bad heart will...
the difference is one is life threatening and the other isn't...
whatever my view is on the A word I never believed ohip should cover it. It is in fact cosmetic surgery. If there is no threat to the women life then it is cosmetic surgery. The removel of an unwanted lump (sorry just making a case)......
jeez Zak I leave you alone for one minute and you get every Conservative gun aimed at your head loll... you should be in the Soprano's LOLL.....
Sara, why don't women just wait for nature to remove "the lump", and then give it up for adoption? I don't get that.
If you really want to reduce the number of abortions, you need to reduce the demand for abortions, not try to shut off the supply of abortions by making them illegal. The latter will just lead to people who demand abortions obtaining unsafe and illegal ones.
If you look at countries with really, really low abortion rates, you'll see that they're places like the Netherlands, where sex education is comprehensive and scientifically accurate, birth control is readily available, there is lots of public assistance available for single women who choose to keep their babies, and the supply of potential adoptive parents is kept as high as possible by allowing same-sex couples and even single individuals to adopt.
If you're not willing to take the steps to make it easy for women to make choices other than abortion, then banning the procedure is counterproductive and cruel.
Sara, I was simply saying that since abortions are covered under the Canada Health Act you cannot be exempted from funding them unless the are illegal. That being said you can only be exempt if you challenge the supreme court ruling.
My major point is to stop bickering about paying for it. You cannot exempt yourself from paying for someone elses abortion no more than you can exempt yourself from paying for someone elses heart transplant.
The analogy was my foolish attempt to get the debate back the heart of the issue, abortion, not who has to pay for it. If it were illegal no one would pay for it...well exept for the poor young lady who got the ol' coat hanger treatment in the back alley.
Bad analogy, no one seemed to follow, (in fact, in some small way, it seemed to make people angrier). My appologies.
no apologies nessesary, the coat hanger one has a point though. Even if you don't like abortion something has to be done about the closet coat hanger, I think personally people need to stop putting down single moms or dads because its just not NORM.. what the hell is norm anymore!
Very good point Sara.
Also, people need to stop looking down on same-sex couples.
Anti-abortion advocates are the same people who oppose same sex marriage, yet they don't see that these couples are a partial solutions to the old "adoption" argument they bring up.
They can't have children, many want to raise children. So why not give them a shot?
That all raises a delicate question for social conservatives:
Which is worse for a child to be aborted or for that child to be raised by homosexuals?
(Cue scary music)
Zac, I posted this already on the "I'm baa-ck" debate, but will repeat it here as well. Same sex adoption is already happening. My friend who works for the CAS has personally placed children with same sex couples. I fail to see how this is going to change the abortion numbers. If a woman is unwilling to carry a child to term, why would she change her mind for a same sex couple or a heterosexual couple for that matter? The point is that there are more people who want to be parents (adoption) that there are women willing to carry to term.
I would like to add my two cents on this debate. I'd like to address several points.
I am a fetal rights activist-- not just a pro-lifer, not just an opponent of abortion. I want Charter Rights for all unborn babies. I loved my unborn babies. And I consider unborn children equals. They are people. They have their own personalities. They have reactions. Check out this ultrasound of an unborn baby crying You have to watch the commercial, but it's worth it. It's not gross, it's not an abortion.
We do know when life begins. Ask any embryologist. Life begins at conception. Any other definition is utterly unscientific. Abortionists will tell you they are killing. But they justify their killing. That's an extremely scary proposition. There are women who think it's murder, but still abort.
Human worth is intrinsic. It is not attributed by any institution or person. The moment one is human, one has rights, period. This is the foundation of our Western Civilization. Any movement in history that has attempted to do away with this notion has failed, and the anti-fetal rights movement will fail as well.
The issue ultimately boils down to this: do you think the unborn child deserves legal protection? And do you think the unborn child is an equal? You can't based legal protection and rights purely on circumstance, such as the reason for the pregnancy, the condition of the child, and the whims of the mother and her entourage. If the unborn child does not deserve legal protection, there's no argument. But if he is valuable and worthy of love and respect, then he deserves legal protection and equal rights, and he should be accepted by society and under the law.
I hope my words were not too forceful, but I do feel strongly about this. God Bless.
Suzanne! - A Fetal Rights Activist!! Now THAT is cool.
Awesome comment. It brings to mind the question that if a pregnant woman is murdered, and the baby also dies, should the suspect be tried on one or two counts?
"Same sex adoption is already happening."
I'm not disputing that Kelly and I hope that it continues.
"I fail to see how this is going to change the abortion numbers"
Perhaps it won't Kelly, but as I explained earlier, I support greater access to adoption. Full fledged adoption will not create households for every child who the mother would abort.
My point is that many right wingers (not saying anything generally about the folks who freguent this site, but many right wingers) oppose abortion, gay marriage, and same sex adoption.
I am saying that to oppose one and the other might be the wrong course to take. If we want to create more adoption spaces then I feel that we should be more open to same sex unions. Many right-wingers don't share that logic though.
I'm not proposing this as a solution Kelly, but something that many pro-lifers, who also oppose same sex adoption should consider.
Wow, Joanne, I'm a little taken aback by you saying it's cool-- I usually get "you %$@~! rightwing zealot nutjob". It's like the girl who's taunted for being ugly at school, and when finally someone says she's pretty, she says "who me?"
I think there should be two counts for the death of a pregnant woman and her unborn. Like the Laci/Connor/Scott Peterson case. People do truly feel a loss when their unborn is killed.
Suzanne, absolutely. BTW, I have no doubt that Omar would label you as you had described.
On the subject of double murders, that exact thing happened in our town a while ago. Mom was really looking forward to having her baby. Was murdered, and the baby who was eight months along died. Fatal stab wounds, I believe.
Can we ascribe any value to that baby, who could possibly have lived if he hadn't been stabbed to death? Mom wanted him. He had value to Mom. Did he have value to the rest of society? When does that moment occur? Please tell me that!!!
Murders walk after 8 years around here anyways, does adding another count really matter?
wow you guys think too much lol..
from a pro-life perspective
having people out there who will love a child unconditionally might convince a mom not to abort. Just because she can't provide emotionally or financially it may be a comfort knowing someone else can.... Not everyone feels that if I can't do it no one can idealism...
from a pro-choice perspective:
a woman who is pregnant for more than 5 months it is the wish of the mom to have the child therefore if the child is killed or murdered along with the mother then yes it should be a double homocide.
Thanks, Sara. Interesting that you refer to the second part of your comment as coming from a pro-choice perspective...
"Murders walk after 8 years around here anyways, does adding another count really matter?"
Oh, boy. That's a good topic for another day!
I have my beliefs but I try to hear others as well. Seeing both sides of the story is not impossible but believing in both is.
Sara, I agree with you that both sides should be heard and respected. What I am confused about is how you see the idea of calling the murder of a pregnant woman a double-murder if the baby is more than 5 months developed and is wanted, and then say it this supports the pro-choice side? Or maybe I'm missing something.
You can have an abortion up to 24 weeks isn't it?? I'm not positive on the exact time line.
So I took a guess at the 5 month mark, if she was 3 months preggo the lawyer could say its only one murder because she might of aborted the child... you see where I'm getting at?
Sara, there is NO LAW IN CANADA REGARDING ABORTION AT THIS TIME!!!
Sorry to shout, but that is the point. A baby can be legally killed today in Canada while in the process of birth.
Yes, yes...turn the Tories against each other
Hence, my plan is coming into fruition.
Muhhahahahaha
what???? what do you mean there is no law!!!!
ok keeping my cool one agenda at a time... but jesus christ! damn I wanna swear right now...
what happened to the 20 week period or something like that????
what???? what do you mean there is no law!!!!
ok keeping my cool one agenda at a time... but jesus christ! damn I wanna swear right now...
what happened to the 20 week period or something like that????
(kicking Zac in the chins for being so devious)
I believe it had something to do with the Supreme Court of Canada, in its infinite wisdom. You know, that all-knowing body that Maurice Vellacott suggested might be playing god, and then got burned at the stake for?
I focus so much on the childcare I usually drown the rest out,,, shit I had no idea..... thats not right no matter what you believe in...
I think even Zac can agree on that one
He does.
Hey Sara! Why don't you consider changing your blog to "Choice for the Child?"
one thing at a time, I'm swamped with the child care as it is lol
I feel like I have a full time job and childcare with no pay at all
Yeah, I know how you feel...
Joanne is right, I believe that there is no legally set timefram for abortions. Certain medical bodies have set down "acceptable" time frames but those are open to debate, as they carry no legal teeth. The 20 weeks you refer to Sara might be the postion taken by one of those bodies.
Having no legally directed time frame makes the abortion issue all the more heated in Canada. Politicians won't touch this issue with a ten foot pole. For some reason all of us are stupid enough to dive in head first, but oh well.
I grew up in Halifax where the Ocean was ice cold all year long. The one thing I learned is if you stick your toe in you'll never go swimming but if you dive in head first you'll swim all day long!
I always like the argument that since a fetus cannot survive on its own, it is technically a parasite. It's always been a favorite of mine because I have yet to see a 1 week old baby up making pancakes in the morning and feeding itself.
Maybe I live in the wrong country.
As for funding based on whether a procedure is a "legal medical procedure", I have to wonder why laser eye clinics are not petitioning for public funding. They are one-time, legal medical procedures that would save hundreds of millions of dollars in eye glasses for millions of Canadians. Yet there is no outcry for public funding.
And one has to always take into consideration penis / breast / facial enhancement clinics. They are legal medical procedures too, you know. Though I am happy with my penis, breasts and... well the face could use some work.
Dammit Harper! I want my facelift covered now!
Surecure - Great point about the one week old baby.
And regarding funding, not sure where you live but in Ontario here Mr. McGuinty has seen fit to delist eye exams!!
I'm an Ontarian as well Joanne. I think McGuinty delisted eye exams so people couldn't see his shifty eyes.
How do you know when Dalton McGuinty is breaking another Liberal election promise? His lips move.
Post a Comment