Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 4 of 5
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Donald Hughes





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 166
Reputation: 16.2Reputation: 16.2
Location: Libertarian socialism

PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 11:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Where did I say "imminent"???
Your definition of imminent might vary from the mainstream definition, but:
Quote:
If a women arrives at an abortion clinic with a baby at term do we really need to "coerce" her to "seperate the premature baby from the mother"? Seems to me she has decided to do it herself. I would argue at that point that the baby should be delivered rather than aborted.
...
Quote:
The number of women arriving at an abortion clinic with a baby over 23 weeks does not come anywhere near close to zero.
I'd be interested to see your statistics that show it is a large proportion of abortions performed. One of the articles I found with recent Canadian numbers actually discussed the difficulty of getting a late term abortion. It notes that the CMA has guidelines against late term abortions unless there is some compelling question of viability. They also note that the 3.3% of abortions performed after this line (in 2001) almost all certainly fit this question of viability. It estimates that about 15 Ontarians and 30 Quebeckers travelled to the US every year to get a late term abortion presumably outside of these guidelines (or just timelines). Of course, US statistics tend to be much lower in terms of percentages on such issues than Canada for various reasons.
Quote:
That moves, has feeling, a heartbeat, brain activity, responds to stimuli - yeah "just a foetus".
If we ever get into the position as a society that our moral and economic resources need to mobilized for the defence of the small percentage of growths inside females that wish to remove them very late into their pregnancies, then I think we will be much different world than the current situation where the hundreds of millions of people suffering from diseases, poverty and other forms of strife just happen to be trying to eek by. In fact, I would go as far as to say that people dwelling on reasons to deny reproductive health care may be using it as a cover for a much less admirable ideology.
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Sorry but if a person does not have control of their own reproductive organs, than they are not free. Abortion is a simple, safe, common medical procedure that is nobody's business but the woman having the procedure done.


They had control of their own reproductive organs when they decided to have sex.


With that said:

I believe that eventually the courts will impose restrictions on abortion. The term that The Justice Minister uses is that there is a "legal blackhole" when it comes to protecting the unborn.

Eventually down the road there is gonna be some court cases which rule in favour of limited protection for unborns; its inevitable and I suspect some groups are lining up their ducks as we speak.
jnarvey





Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 47
Reputation: 17.2Reputation: 17.2
Location: Vancouver

PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 8:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with kwlafayette and his post from a little while back.

Code:
Canadians wanted a principled leader and that is why they voted for Harper. I have no doubt that if Harper believed that abortion was a big issue for a lot of Canadians, he would do something about it regardless of the political fallout. Since it does not seem to be a big issue for a lot of people, he will leave it alone.


I didn't vote for Stephen Harper in the last election for him to secure the rights of an unborn fetus. Neither did anyone else if they have a brain. The abortion debate is dead in Canada. It's over. Freedom of choice won. Get over it.

I did vote for Stephen Harper to rid our country of a corrupt regime and get better management of our foreign and economic policy, as well as a tough-on-crime agenda. Presumably, that's why most people voted for him. Those are the real issues that most Canadians care about.
george_the_reformer





Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 8
Reputation: 13
Location: Vancouver

PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But of course, the only Federal jurisidiction is under the Criminal Code. All the things you point out are provincial.

So the topic should not enter into a federal election.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7435
Reputation: 297.4
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

When a topic like this comes up in a fourm, I am always impressed to see how quickly one side or the other jumps to the "Extreme" cases to justify their point, be it the Woman who was raped, or the woman in medical danger, or the woman on her 20th late term abortion.

I would much rather debate the point whereas it reflects that majority of cases rather then the rare cases.

I am not going to get into what side of the fence I am on, but I just really wanted to answer the question.

Liberals have been using this as an "Anti Harper" scare tactic for years, he is going to outlaw abortion if elected because Conservatives are all right wing ultra wealthy white males. The reality is that if George W. Bush who is far more right of Center the Stephen Harper has not done it after being President with a Republican Senate for six years, its never going to happen in Canada.

Its too much of a Pandora's box and is one of those issues that makes for political commercials that bury other parties.

-Z
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

All you have to do when someone says "abortion should be legal because of rape", you just start down this list:

Theft should be legal because someone might be starving, or dying of exposure.
Murder should be legal because of self defense.

The point is that laws cannot be based on the xtreme cases, intelligent people should already know that, and there is probably no point even engaging anyone else.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
All you have to do when someone says "abortion should be legal because of rape", you just start down this list:

Theft should be legal because someone might be starving, or dying of exposure.
Murder should be legal because of self defense.

The point is that laws cannot be based on the xtreme cases, intelligent people should already know that, and there is probably no point even engaging anyone else.



Murder is legal, if it is truely in self defence, and your actions don't go beyond a reasonable effort to defend yourself..

You can't compare theft because someone is starving to aborting a child that was brought into this world against someone's will. The two situations are completely different in every way...
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think you are getting what I am saying. Saying that all abortion should be legal because of rape or danger to the mother's life is exactly the same thing as saying all murder should be legal because of self defense. Stated another way, basing the law upon 1% of the cases leads to bad laws; you need to base your laws on the general case.

In the case of abortion, the general case is consensual, unprotected sex leading to unwanted (but by no means unforseeable) pregnancy. Unless, I suppose, you ascribe to the theory that all sex is rape.

http://www.fathers.bc.ca/feminist_quotes.htm
PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Unless, I suppose, you ascribe to the theory that all sex is rape."

That would be as ridiculous as ascribing to the theory that "all use is abuse" when it comes to recreational drug use. What kind of idiot would even suggest such a thing?
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
I don't think you are getting what I am saying. Saying that all abortion should be legal because of rape or danger to the mother's life is exactly the same thing as saying all murder should be legal because of self defense. Stated another way, basing the law upon 1% of the cases leads to bad laws; you need to base your laws on the general case.

In the case of abortion, the general case is consensual, unprotected sex leading to unwanted (but by no means unforseeable) pregnancy. Unless, I suppose, you ascribe to the theory that all sex is rape.

http://www.fathers.bc.ca/feminist_quotes.htm


I don't think that you don't get that that is but a single argument for not making abortion illegal. In fact, the arguments against abortion are based primarily on religious reasons, or "moral" reasons. Its quite hilarious to look at the people who support the position - many of them are also supporters of the death penalty(as am i) - why the double standard? I can't see one single financial or societal argument that holds sway of any sort for refusing abortion... In fact, one could argue that the increased number of jobs and decreased number of low-class people having babies they can't afford(and become part of the social safety net costs)

"What kind of idiot would even suggest such a thing?"

Now, Now Dr. Lets tone it down a bit...
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are many societal arguments in favor of banning abortion, it is just that they are ignored or dismissed. For example, Canadian parents having Canadian children propogates Canadian values into the future. Immigrant parents having immigrant children, in a country where multiculturalism rules and assimilation is verbotten propogates Iranian or Pakistanni, or other values into the future. Having Canadians as citizens is better for Canada in the long run than having Iranian-Canadian, or French-Canadian, or Malaysian-Canadian citizens. Notice how the other place is always first? Babies raised in homes with Judeo-Christian values are more likely to hold those values than babies raised in homes with Sharia values.

The land that Canada consists of will probably always be here, but in a hundred years time, will any of us recognize the place if we stay on the same track that we are currently on?

PS. The argument about low class people having babies they cannot afford is facile. The converse of that argumnet is how do you know that you are not aborting the next Mozart, Bill Gates, etc., etc.?

PPS. I suppose what I am trying to say can be summed up as; society needs children to survive. Any society that does not have a sufficient supply of children will not survive. Any act that society takes that increases the number of children helps the chances of survival. Any action that society takes that decreases the number of children hurts the chances of survival.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"For example, Canadian parents having Canadian children propogates Canadian values into the future. Immigrant parents having immigrant children, in a country where multiculturalism rules and assimilation is verbotten propogates Iranian or Pakistanni, or other values into the future."

This point I will definitely concede... I do however believe that in several generations, the "arab-canadians" etc.. will find that their religion has become much less important to them in life, much like "christian-canadians" have seen happen to theirs. I already see this with several of my muslim friends.

I can understand the unwillingness of individuals to abort an unborn, unthinking child..
But the Country I, as a multi-generational, English/Scottish Descendant (although I choose not to be religious, most of my extended family is) want does not limit a parent's right to reverse a mistake that could cost them, and their child a prosperous life.

As much as you may be aborting the next mozart, you're just as likely(if not more) to be aborting someone who will be: mediocre, below-average, physically or mentally disabled, or the next Hitler, Bernardo or dahmer.

Currently, our birth-rate in this country is high enough to sustain ourselves... I don't think we need to be trying to grow too massive, i'm happy where we're at.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Population replacement level is 2.1 children per woman. Canada's fertility rate is about 1.52.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/En.....20703a.htm
http://www.pregnantpause.org/numbers/fertility.htm
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

oh yeah :oops:
i knew it was 1.5, just wasn't thinking lol
fine point..

Enabling abortion is not likely to raise that number enough to make a big difference - 100 000/yr. is the number I consistently see. a good number of those would only have one child, so were they to have that initial child, they may not have the others.

hard to say..

what it really comes down to here is whether you disagree on a moral basis...

some do, some do not.
palomino_pony





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 539
Reputation: 93.9Reputation: 93.9
votes: 3
Location: Lower Mainland, BC

PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jnarvey wrote:
I didn't vote for Stephen Harper in the last election for him to secure the rights of an unborn fetus. Neither did anyone else if they have a brain.


As an economic conservative and a libertarian leaning voter, I too was not motivated to support the Conservatives because of their stance on abortion. I think that issue has been "resolved" a while back and any politician who wants to get re-elected should not reopen the debate.

This is a sensitive issue for a lot of people because of the religion factor and I would caution against making remarks about people "not having a brain" who voted for Harper because they hoped to make abortion illegal. People support political parties for all sorts of reasons, some of which may not make sense to you. It does not mean that they are less intelligent than you, it just means that they reached different conclusions. Isn't this what democracy is all about? There are better ways to get your point across without resorting to these types of comments.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 4 of 5

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Will abortion ever be illegal in Canada again?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB