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 ... , 10, 11, 12  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 11 of 12
View previous topic :: View next topic  

What kind of abortion law would you support?
A law that bans all abortions (which will never pass the Supreme Court)
12%
 12%  [ 4 ]
A compromise law that would outlaw all abortions past the first trimester
25%
 25%  [ 8 ]
A law like Britans (abortions within 22 weeks)
18%
 18%  [ 6 ]
Status Quo. More abortions good. Less abortions bad
15%
 15%  [ 5 ]
Abortion only if needed to save the mother's life
25%
 25%  [ 8 ]
Abortion only for victims of sexual assault or incest
3%
 3%  [ 1 ]
Total Votes : 32

Author Message
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 12:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The point is not to extend the 'right to life' to any and all people who want to make this claim on behalf of mute embryos, but rather to understand how the 'viability' of a woman's life depends upon an exersize of bodily autonomy and on social conditions that enable that autonomy
Judith Butler
Rusty Bedsprings





Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 1629

votes: 5

PostPosted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 3:54 pm    Post subject: abortion Reply with quote

abortion is baaaad says bah bah black sheep. I think that if the mother wants to kill the baby we should wait till the baby can speak and then ask it if it would like us to kill it. Of cource it is only fair if the gov funded the babys needs up to that point. if the kid chose to die then the mom does not have to pay the gov back, but if the kid decids to let us kill him then its the govs fault and so it should bear the fiscal burden of keeping the child alive untill it could make the decition.
ezbeatz





Joined: 09 Oct 2008
Posts: 1140
Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5
votes: 10
Location: Vaughan, ON

PostPosted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looking at the results, we're pretty evenly split. I think most people in Canada would support the 22-week option.
crazymamma





Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 1011
Reputation: 71.8
votes: 14
Location: The kitchen

PostPosted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ezbeatz wrote:
Looking at the results, we're pretty evenly split. I think most people in Canada would support the 22-week option.


I think that even more folks would be on board for the 22 week option if a portion of their paychecks weren't stolen to pay for those abortions that they disagree with. If all medically unnecessary abortions were paid for with private monies, I could see a more live and let live attitude develop.
Habsrwfan





Joined: 04 Oct 2008
Posts: 688
Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8
votes: 5

PostPosted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I picked the "past the first trimester" option. From what I've learned in reading up on child development within the womb, I believe that we have an unborn child that is very close to a newborn baby by the beginning of the 2nd Trimester. At this point, we have a beating heart, brainwave activity, and a unborn child with the basic human form and features of a newborn baby only on a far smaller scale.

I personally dislike all elective abortions, but I have to admit that the science on the matter is murky within the 1st Trimester - it really is a matter of personal moral belief whether or not an unborn child in the 1st Trimester deserves the same basic rights and protections that a newborn baby are afforded. However, I see the science on the matter being pretty firm and conclusive as it pertains to 2nd trimester and beyond elective abortions.

However, I am flexible here. I've heard child viability suggested as a legal cutoff point, and I'd certainly take that over the status quo.
lucamanfredi





Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 170
Reputation: 41.3Reputation: 41.3Reputation: 41.3Reputation: 41.3
votes: 2

PostPosted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 8:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Abortion debates always attract the most passionate attacks against the opposing side. I am on the pro-choice side, and I'd definitely like a law, so that people know what the rules actually are. Because when we have a set of rules we can actually enforce them.

I favor the viability clause, if anything because at least by then you know there's a great chance of the kid surviving. going about systematically attempting to keep every aborted foetus alive would be, from a cold-hearted money point of view, an inefficient use of medical resources.

If public financing is an issue, then state that the first one is on the public (we all make mistakes) and any further ones will be charged at full price unless there's a police report (rape, under the influence, etc) or proof of contraceptive failure. Since this point isn't very practical, bring contraceptives and proper sex ed to the public. If we aren't prepared to prevent it we can't shy away from footing the bill.

Some women make the mistake and choose to have abortions because at a later time they'll be able to afford the kid a greater amount of attention and a better lifestyle (e.g. they'll be further in their careers). Try going through a year at university pregnant, and a mother from then...

As for abortions due to genetic defects I will concede to forbidding them ONLY when I will see free, quick and accessible genetic tests for couples and individuals and FREE pre-implantation screening. No-one will persuade me that the world is filled with good samaritans who will adopt any and every baby, no matter the genetic make-up. I run on the assumption that virtue is an exception. I believe that certain gene mutations causing disease should be gradually phased out of the human gene pool. Prevention at the source (couple genetic tests) is the best option.

I'll end on a more psych note. If we ban all abortions, we take choice away. When they feel they have no choice, human beings tend to do very stupid things.
Rusty Bedsprings





Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 1629

votes: 5

PostPosted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 9:08 pm    Post subject: abortion Reply with quote

it has been proved that a baby as soon as six weeks from conception can feel pain. Now you tell me, takeing this last bit of relitively new info (last year or so) as true that under any circumstances killing the baby could be morally right. I am pro choice, the babys choice that is. once the baby is old enough to speek see if he/she wants to kill themselves. Let the baby decide.
Cole





Joined: 19 Oct 2008
Posts: 12


PostPosted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 9:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Having abortions available lowers the long-term crime rate. That's the main reason why I support it.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 9:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cole wrote:
Having abortions available lowers the long-term crime rate. That's the main reason why I support it.

Can you cite any research to verify that assertion?

-Mac
crazymamma





Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 1011
Reputation: 71.8
votes: 14
Location: The kitchen

PostPosted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lucamanfredi wrote:
Abortion debates always attract the most passionate attacks against the opposing side. I am on the pro-choice side, and I'd definitely like a law, so that people know what the rules actually are. Because when we have a set of rules we can actually enforce them.

I favor the viability clause, if anything because at least by then you know there's a great chance of the kid surviving. going about systematically attempting to keep every aborted foetus alive would be, from a cold-hearted money point of view, an inefficient use of medical resources.

If public financing is an issue, then state that the first one is on the public (we all make mistakes) and any further ones will be charged at full price unless there's a police report (rape, under the influence, etc) or proof of contraceptive failure. Since this point isn't very practical, bring contraceptives and proper sex ed to the public. If we aren't prepared to prevent it we can't shy away from footing the bill.

Some women make the mistake and choose to have abortions because at a later time they'll be able to afford the kid a greater amount of attention and a better lifestyle (e.g. they'll be further in their careers). Try going through a year at university pregnant, and a mother from then...

As for abortions due to genetic defects I will concede to forbidding them ONLY when I will see free, quick and accessible genetic tests for couples and individuals and FREE pre-implantation screening. No-one will persuade me that the world is filled with good samaritans who will adopt any and every baby, no matter the genetic make-up. I run on the assumption that virtue is an exception. I believe that certain gene mutations causing disease should be gradually phased out of the human gene pool. Prevention at the source (couple genetic tests) is the best option.

I'll end on a more psych note. If we ban all abortions, we take choice away. When they feel they have no choice, human beings tend to do very stupid things.


Luca, that is the most wishy washy gobbly feel good goop I have heard in a long time my man.

The first one is a free bee? Give me a break already, if you think it is important that women are allowed to use the big eraser you or your like minded friends PAY FOR IT. If the mother is not going to die it is as necessary as a freaking botox session or lypo. Its a vanity surgery at best and I resent money taken out of my pocket, out of my family's pocket, mouth for such a frivolous self absorbed procedure that is in no way medically necessary.

I personally only agree with abortion if the mother is under threat of death, but in deference to my Libertarian leanings I am not willing to push that on others, but please stop forcing me to participate/be complicite in the mindless soulless execution of millions of innocent children. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT.
Cole





Joined: 19 Oct 2008
Posts: 12


PostPosted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 9:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ever read the book "freakonomics", the author gives an interesting perspective, on the connection

Here's the wikipedia page with links to some of those studies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L......27s_study
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cole wrote:
Ever read the book "freakonomics", the author gives an interesting perspective, on the connection

Here's the wikipedia page with links to some of those studies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L......27s_study


If we rounded up everyone who committed a crime and sterilized them it would probably lower the long term crime rate too (given the genetic link identified to crime). Heck - why sterilize them. Let's just kill them with all of our concealed weapons.
Cole





Joined: 19 Oct 2008
Posts: 12


PostPosted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yeah, but i t makes me more comfortable with my pro-choice position, knowing the link.
crazymamma





Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 1011
Reputation: 71.8
votes: 14
Location: The kitchen

PostPosted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 10:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
Cole wrote:
Ever read the book "freakonomics", the author gives an interesting perspective, on the connection

Here's the wikipedia page with links to some of those studies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L......27s_study


If we rounded up everyone who committed a crime and sterilized them it would probably lower the long term crime rate too (given the genetic link identified to crime). Heck - why sterilize them. Let's just kill them with all of our concealed weapons.


Now THAT was a funny bit of sarcasm. :P :twisted:
cuzzin_elias





Joined: 04 Dec 2008
Posts: 114
Reputation: -5.8
votes: 4
Location: People b4 Profit

PostPosted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 3:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Your forgot one option.... legalizing them all
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 11 of 12

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 10, 11, 12  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 can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


What kind of Abortion Law Would You Support

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB