# Abortion Issues - Mega Thread [MERGED]



## PMedMoe (21 Mar 2012)

So glad I'm not an American (for this and many other reasons):  Abortion Bill: Arizona GOP Legislator Says Women Should Witness Abortions

A Republican state legislator in Arizona reportedly wrote an email to a constituent saying that women should witness an abortion before having an abortion. 

The email published on a political blog on the Arizona Republic's website Tuesday is apparently from State Rep. Terri Proud (R-Tucson) and appears to have been sent from a state email, the paper said. 

The email was in response to a constituent who said she emailed Proud and fellow lawmakers to let them know she opposed the bill pending in the Legislature that would ban abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy. The site reports that the email is unedited. 

"Personally I'd like to make a law that mandates a woman watch an abortion being performed prior to having a "surgical procedure". If it's not a life it shouldn't matter, if it doesn't harm a woman then she shouldn't care, and don't we want more transparency and education in the medical profession anyway? We demand it everywhere else. 
Until the dead child can tell me that she/he does not feel any pain - I have no intentions of clearing the conscience of the living - I will be voting YES."

More at link

Link to blog:  http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/PoliticalInsider/157762?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter  

Love most of the comments on the blog itself.

I think women should have to witness childbirth before having a baby.  Most would probably not get pregnant.  I know I wouldn't have.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Mar 2012)

It seems that being a "busybody" is the in thing to do Moe.


----------



## cupper (21 Mar 2012)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> So glad I'm not an American (for this and many other reasons):  Abortion Bill: Arizona GOP Legislator Says Women Should Witness Abortions
> 
> A Republican state legislator in Arizona reportedly wrote an email to a constituent saying that women should witness an abortion before having an abortion.
> 
> ...



It's that or undergo a intravaginal ultrasound.


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Mar 2012)

Dumbest thing I heard today?


Yep


----------



## PMedMoe (21 Mar 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> It's that or undergo a intravaginal ultrasound.



Or what?  And to what purpose?


----------



## dapaterson (21 Mar 2012)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Or what?  And to what purpose?



New rules in Texas.  Women must undergo an intravaginal ultrasound with the doctor describing in detail everything he or she sees, then the woman must wait 24 hours before receiving an abortion.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Mar 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> New rules in Texas.  Women must undergo an intravaginal ultrasound with the doctor describing in detail everything he or she sees, then the woman must wait 24 hours before receiving an abortion.



For a country that proclaims separation of church and state this sounds like something right out of the Bible.


----------



## GAP (21 Mar 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> For a country that proclaims separation of church and state this sounds like something right out of the Bible  extremist pulpit.



other than the location, I'd agree.....


----------



## PMedMoe (21 Mar 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> New rules in Texas.  Women must undergo an intravaginal ultrasound with the doctor describing in detail everything he or she sees, then the woman must wait 24 hours before receiving an abortion.



I have to say, as invasive as that procedure is, it wouldn't stop me if I had good reasons for wanting an abortion.

All this shit is going to do is revert the U.S. right back to women going to shady offices in back alleys to unlicensed practitioners and putting their health and lives in jeopardy.


----------



## medicineman (21 Mar 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> For a country that proclaims separation of church and state this sounds like something right out of the Bible.



We're not much different here Jim - teaching or providing of contraception in most of Canada was illegal until the early 30's...and was prohibited to even be mentioned in medical schools in Quebec until the 50's.  Problem is the laws were/are written by and for God fearing folks...it'll never really be truly seperated.

 :2c:

MM


----------



## armyvern (22 Mar 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> For a country that proclaims separation of church and state this sounds like something right out of the Bible.



That's what I'm thinking too. So much for Roe versus Wade.

Being that they pay for this there, those who live close to state borders and who can travel 'outside' for abortions - will. Those in the inner-cities, poor etc, who can't afford to will sit through this procedure and wait their 24 hours ... others will simply resort to consorting with those non-official backroom guys once again and those increased deaths that go along with it.

Way to time warp themselves back to the dark ages.


----------



## vonGarvin (22 Mar 2012)

I hate to go against the grain here, but there are some of us who believe, as a result of logical process and not because of blind adherence to some fire breathing minister's ranting, that human life, independent human life, begins at conception. This makes this a human rights issue, not one of mystical faith.  .
So, talk all you will about oppression of women. I for the life of me cannot accept that I was NOT a human being from the time I was conceived. Don't worry, I'm not going to further the argument, but I just had to point out that although it appears to be popular opinion, not every one finds it dumb.  And not because "my pope told me to think this way".

Full disclosure here, I'm a practicing Roman Catholic.  But I wasn't always.  Even when I wasn't, when I thought it was just a bunch of "blah blah" by old men out of touch with reality, I still could not come to a logical point other than conception when human life began.  


Okay, you can ban me, complain about me, or delete this post because I'm such a dark age neanderthal.  

(Edited slightly for typos and context)

EDIT AGAIN:  Damn, I forgot.  I couldn't care less if you use contraceptives.  Just in case you thought I was obsessed with your sex lives.  I couldn't care less.


----------



## Redeye (22 Mar 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I hate to go against the grain here, but there are some of us who believe, as a result of logical process and not because of blind adherence to some fire breathing minister's ranting, that human life, independent human life, begins at conception. This makes this a human rights issue, not one of mystical faith.  .
> So, talk all you will about oppression of women. I for the life of me cannot accept that I was NOT a human being from the time I was conceived. Don't worry, I'm not going to further the argument, but I just had to point out that although it appears to be popular opinion, not every one finds it dumb.  And not because "my pope told me to think this way".
> 
> Full disclosure here, I'm a practicing Roman Catholic.  But I wasn't always.  Even when I wasn't, when I thought it was just a bunch of "blah blah" by old men out of touch with reality, I still could not come to a logical point other than conception when human life began.
> ...



None of that excuses the idea of forcing women seeking to terminate their pregnancy to be subjected to unnecessary, invasive procedures. Nor does it excuse a law passed by the Arizona Senate that essentially allows doctors who oppose abortion to lie to women about situations which may lead them to choose to abort.

By your argument, given how many fertilized embryos fail to implant, I've seen a tongue-in-cheek argument made that god is the greatest abortionist of all. However, I also could rack that up on this board of dumb things. The reality is that while the definition of life may well be debated, but the law of the land in most cases makes clear that it's birth. I don't think any woman can (let alone should) be forced to carry a pregnancy to term that for any reason whatsoever she does not want. It's that simple. If there's no access to legal, safe abortion, then women will seek solutions elsewhere, regardless of the potential costs. It's really that simple. I hope that these laws blow up in the faces of those who pushed them.


----------



## armyvern (22 Mar 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I hate to go against the grain here, but there are some of us who believe, as a result of logical process and not because of blind adherence to some fire breathing minister's ranting, that human life, independent human life, begins at conception. This makes this a human rights issue, not one of mystical faith.  .
> So, talk all you will about oppression of women. I for the life of me cannot accept that I was NOT a human being from the time I was conceived. Don't worry, I'm not going to further the argument, but I just had to point out that although it appears to be popular opinion, not every one finds it dumb.  And not because "my pope told me to think this way".
> 
> Full disclosure here, I'm a practicing Roman Catholic.  But I wasn't always.  Even when I wasn't, when I thought it was just a bunch of "blah blah" by old men out of touch with reality, I still could not come to a logical point other than conception when human life began.
> ...



OK, so for you - that's your religious view and logical process. Don't have an abortion. Quite simple really. I can't make you have one either.

So, if it's not my religious view nor logical conclusion, why make me follow yours?

You can can call me illogical, uneducated, what the heck you wish, but last time I checked, you weren't God nor the boss of me, my body, my decisions.

I'll respect you logic (opinion!), religion and physical being ... please respect mine. What's the problem with that?


----------



## Journeyman (22 Mar 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I for the life of me cannot accept that I was NOT a human being from the time I was conceived.


Now _there's_ that blind mythical faith -- some of us don't yet accept that you're a human being.   

    ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Mar 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I hate to go against the grain here, but there are some of us who believe, as a result of logical process and not because of blind adherence to some fire breathing minister's ranting, that human life, independent human life, begins at conception. This makes this a human rights issue, not one of mystical faith.  .
> So, talk all you will about oppression of women. I for the life of me cannot accept that I was NOT a human being from the time I was conceived. Don't worry, I'm not going to further the argument, but I just had to point out that although it appears to be popular opinion, not every one finds it dumb.  And not because "my pope told me to think this way".
> 
> Full disclosure here, I'm a practicing Roman Catholic.  But I wasn't always.  Even when I wasn't, when I thought it was just a bunch of "blah blah" by old men out of touch with reality, I still could not come to a logical point other than conception when human life began.
> ...



You're a brave man right enuff ..... but, to the rest of you:  What he sez.  And that from a non-practicing Presbyterian.

Having said that:  It is always your decision - regardless of morals, ethics, laws, rules and regulations.  And nobody ever can take that away from you, right or wrong.

And by the way JM:  every now and then he demonstrates the ability to count (but so do some chimpanzees).


----------



## ballz (22 Mar 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> OK, so for you - that's your religious view and logical process. Don't have an abortion. Quite simple really. I can't make you have one either.
> 
> So, if it's not my religious view nor logical conclusion, why make me follow yours?
> 
> ...



Sorry TV, I know you can speak for yourself...

Because from his point of view, abortion is murdering another human being. You wouldn't expect your argument, "I don't believe murder is wrong, so don't force your belief that it's wrong on me by making a law against it and putting me in jail if I murder someone," to hold weight.

Christopher Hitchens, one of the most proud atheists to ever live, was also against abortion for the same reasons. It sure wasn't because he was brainwashed by religion to think so.

And also to provide full disclosure, I'm an agnostic rationalist and I'm pro-choice and pro-contraception.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Mar 2012)

My two cents:

Abortions should be safe, available and rare.

Giving people resources to avoid the requirement to seek an abortion should be the first LoO - information on reproduction and availability of contraceptive systems (meds, devices etc).


----------



## PMedMoe (22 Mar 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> My two cents:
> 
> Abortions should be safe, available and rare.
> 
> Giving people resources to avoid the requirement to seek an abortion should be the first LoO - information on reproduction and availability of contraceptive systems (meds, devices etc).



 :goodpost:


----------



## frank1515 (22 Mar 2012)

Lets keep it simple...

Let the people decide. If a woman wants an abortion, who are we to to tell her she is not allowed? You might not agree with such practise, but it does not affect you directly. If you disagree with such practise, don't practise it!


----------



## ballz (22 Mar 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> My two cents:
> 
> Abortions should be safe, available and rare.
> 
> Giving people resources to avoid the requirement to seek an abortion should be the first LoO - information on reproduction and availability of contraceptive systems (meds, devices etc).



Agreed... but in the US the GOP who are pretty much all against abortions are also against contraception, and even more are against paying for someone else's contraception.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Mar 2012)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> :goodpost:



Is it possible to obviate the need for abortions by better supporting the mothers?

It is not as if we don't have the need for more Canadians.  Nor is the problem a lack of resources to support both the mothers and the children.

Is there any need to stigmatize an unwed mother who is pregnant?  Is there no way to support a young woman in her career aspirations even if she has become pregnant?

Why do women feel they have to have abortions?  Are there really no other alternatives?

And I'm not being the devil's advocate here I really want to know.

Some years ago I had a conversation with my daughter and let her know that no matter what happened she would never have to worry about making that decision.  Her mother and father would support her and her child no matter what.  Abortion should not be necessary.

And having said that, if she chose to have an abortion, she would still be our daughter and have our support.


----------



## PMedMoe (22 Mar 2012)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Why do women feel they have to have abortions?  Are there really no other alternatives?



I can think of several reasons:

Medical problems

Rape and/or incest

Age (whether too young or too old)

Mental status

Emotional state

As you can see, the reasons vary as much as people do.  I don't agree with abortion as a contraceptive, however, if a woman is using birth control and also uses a condom (practice safe sex!) and still gets pregnant (yes, rare, I know), obviously, she did not intend to get pregnant and should have the right to terminate the pregnancy if she so wishes.  I (personally) think abortions should be done as soon as possible and do not agree (again personally) with late term abortions.

In some cases, the woman is just not ready, whether it is emotionally, financially or mentally.

Agree on your other points for support.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> Agreed... but in the US the GOP who are pretty much all against abortions are also against contraception, and even more are against paying for someone else's contraception.



I wonder what their stance is on a tubal ligation or a hysterectomy?


----------



## NSDreamer (22 Mar 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> OK, so for you - that's your religious view and logical process. Don't have an abortion. Quite simple really. I can't make you have one either.
> 
> So, if it's not my religious view nor logical conclusion, why make me follow yours?
> 
> ...




 See, you're making an arguement without accepting his premise. If he believes his premise is correct-> Fetus/Embryo etc does represent a VALID human person. Then in his view that person should be entitled to the same rights as any other person via their charter rights.  IE 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

 If you accept his premise it, the arguement isn't that it's the woman's right to have the abortion, but that instead it's state sanctioned murder of an individual. On this basis, and accepting this premise, it's easily agreeable that abortion would be wrong. 

The debate, in my mind, is where you define that that embryo becomes a person. Is it at conception?


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Mar 2012)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I can think of several reasons:
> 
> Medical problems
> 
> ...



Moe: I can accept most of your caveats most of the time but even there, there is room to quibble over details - case dependent.

I will clearly state that if it comes to a toss up between sacrificing the daughter I know and the grandchild I haven't met then I would encourage my daughter to sacrifice her child and my grandchild.


----------



## PMedMoe (22 Mar 2012)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Moe: I can accept most of your caveats most of the time but even there, there is room to quibble over details - case dependent.



Yes, that is true.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I will clearly state that if it comes to a toss up between sacrificing the daughter I know and the grandchild I haven't met then I would encourage my daughter to sacrifice her child and my grandchild.



Having a daughter as well, I agree with you on this one.   :nod:


----------



## cupper (22 Mar 2012)

Of late, the GOP is backing away from their attempts to curtail women's health care (abortion, contraception, Planned Parenthood funding). They seem to be reading the tea leaves after the party, and don't like the backlash they are getting.

Several states have either killed or sent back for more consideration various pieces of legislation which address abortion rights, coverage of women's health, etc.

Even Arizona legislators are reconsidering the whole lie to your patient or go to jail bill (wonder why?).


----------



## armyvern (22 Mar 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> Sorry TV, I know you can speak for yourself...
> 
> Because from his point of view, abortion is murdering another human being. You wouldn't expect your argument, "I don't believe murder is wrong, so don't force your belief that it's wrong on me by making a law against it and putting me in jail if I murder someone," to hold weight.
> 
> ...



No because I also come to my conclusion basis on logic and science - exactly as he has said he's done.

1) It is a scientific fact that in the first trimester of pregnancy, a foetus is not developed enough to live should the mother go into labour. At this stage, it is simply not a viable lifeform capable of living and breathing outside of the womb. Find me one case where a foetus 'born' (miscarried) in this trimester has survived to take a single breath.

2) There are quite seperate laws dealing with later-term abortion etc that are applied in later stages of pregnancy exactly because scientific fact shows that a woman's natural labour at those stages would result the birth of a viable lifeform who may be capable of breathing (ie "living") outside of the womb.

3) My logic therefore follows, based upon scientific fact, that a woman who has an abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy is not terminating a viable lifeform at that point.

4) My logic also therefore follows that the arguement that she "is" indeed terminating (or as rapid pro-lifers would state: "murdering") a "child's life" at this point of the pregnancy is not based upon scientific fact, but rather morals - very often religious based morals.

5) If she had a miscarriage at this point in time would she be a murderer (because there has not ever been a child in the world who has survived for a single breath born at this point of the pregnancy)? No. Did she naturally go into labour? No. So then, why does logic for some people hold that if she makes the choice to terminate rather than "gawd or nature" that she must be a murderer?

Gawd isn't part of the equation unless one allows him to be (and that is a personal choice / religious viewpoint). That leaves her "going against nature" <--- and science has shown that nature has yet to produce a single viable human lifeform that is capable of "living" on it's own at this point in time to date. 


And, let's be clear: I would never have an abortion (that is _my_ moral choice) and have had 5 miscarriages in my attempts to have my two wonderful children. But, for me, (I'm an athiest) gawd is not part of the equation (and everyone else claims it's not part of their logical reasoning either) so we can take it off the table. Only "nature" then comes into play and, my morals tell me that I have no right to tell her that she can not terminate "a scientifically non viable lifeform", because in the first trimester, that is exactly what she would be aborting.


----------



## ballz (23 Mar 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> No because I also come to my conclusion basis on logic and science - exactly as he has said he's done.
> 
> 1) It is a scientific fact that in the first trimester of pregnancy, a foetus is not developed enough to live should the mother go into labour. At this stage, it is simply not a viable lifeform capable of living and breathing outside of the womb. Find me one case where a foetus 'born' (miscarried) in this trimester has survived to take a single breath.
> 
> ...



I guess you ignored the part where I said I am an agnostic rationalist and pro-choice or you wouldn't have written all this out for me to read. I have already agreed to it all.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> my morals tell me that I have no right to tell her that she can not terminate "a scientifically non viable lifeform"



This is the only part you wrote that is relevant to your question about why someone who is pro-life wants to impose laws against pro-choice people. Their morals tell them that you have no right to kill another human being, and therefore they *do* have the right to intervene. The fact that you don't think it's murder is IRRELEVANT to THEM. 

If you thought *insert random act here* was murder, would you not then be morally obligated to try and prevent it from happening? 

If every time I watched South Park some kid in Africa died, but I didn't believe you when you told me watching South Park was killing kids in Africa, and said "Piss off with your nonsense Vern, I'm not harming anyone"... would you not feel morally obligated to try to stop me from watching South Park???

If your answer is yes, then you would be doing the same thing that pro-lifers are doing.


----------



## exabedtech (23 Mar 2012)

Religion rules US politics.  In a nation at war, gripped by recession and burning through a trillion dollars more a year than it has, take a look at what sort of topics are discussed in the GOP race or US politics in general.

Regardless of where you stand on the abortion issue, the fact is that the drive in US for/against IS a religious thing.  If it were based on anything else, it would have been resolved decades ago.

I'm so very thankful that we haven't followed them down that road...  Lets keep it that way.


----------



## armyvern (23 Mar 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> I guess you ignored the part where I said I am an agnostic rationalist and pro-choice or you wouldn't have written all this out for me to read. I have already agreed to it all.



No, I wrote all that because you spoke to "TV considers this to be murder" (a word he never utilized). He stated that he utilized logic. I quoted you as you brought the word "murder" into it (under TVs name) while quoting my post about "logic". I therefore laid out why I do not consider this "to be murder" and further spoke to the "logic" I used to come up with my original response to TV. 



> This is the only part you wrote that is relevant to your question about why someone who is pro-life wants to impose laws against pro-choice people. Their morals tell them that you have no right to kill another human being, and therefore they *do* have the right to intervene. The fact that you don't think it's murder is IRRELEVANT to THEM.
> 
> If you thought *insert random act here* was murder, would you not then be morally obligated to try and prevent it from happening?
> 
> ...



It is not irrelevant to the discussion. They have used their logic to determine that it is "murder", I have simply stated my logic to say why I believe it is not. Just as my logic may be irrelevant to them, theirs is irrelevant to me.

The law allows for early term abortions, and treats late-term abortions quite differently in law and circumstance, exactly because of life viability. The law does not consider early-term abortions to be murder based upon that science._ They_ may, but that is their choice based upon personal morality (and, quite often religion). Obviously my morality says differently.

Currently, the law agrees.

As to the part in yellow (which is actually your own brand of completely irrelevant drivel), my answer would be an unequivocal, "No, South Park is a cartoon and you watching television in the first world did not cause their deaths." Factually speaking, X number of children in Africa actually *did* die while I typed this ... actual living, breathing, children. Is that my fault? No.


----------



## ballz (23 Mar 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> It is not irrelevant to the discussion. They have used their logic to determine that it is "murder", I have simply stated my logic to say why I believe it is not. Just as my logic may be irrelevant to them, theirs is irrelevant to me.



It is completely irrelevant to your question "why do they think it's okay to push it on other people." How both parties came to the conclusion they did is irrelevant. The point is, some people feel it's murder, and therefore they have to stop it. Our logic tells us "no harm, no foul," much like someone chewing tobacco in their own home, so we don't care. 

There's a big difference, as a result of the conclusions pro-lifers and pro-choice have come to, in what action they feel the are morally obligated to do.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> As to the part in yellow (which is actually your own brand of completely irrelevant drivel), my answer would be an unequivocal, "No, South Park is a cartoon and you watching television in the first world did not cause their deaths." Factually speaking, X number of children in Africa actually *did* die while I typed this ... actual living, breathing, children. Is that my fault? No.



No, it wasn't irrelevant drivel, I was trying to get you to stand in a pro-lifers shoes for a second, which you haven't done because you took the example so literally. :facepalm:

I assumed you asked because you wanted to understand where the pro-lifers were coming from in thinking that it was okay to legislate against abortion, and as a pro-choice person that thinks the pro-lifers have a point and are justified in trying to push it on people, that maybe I'd be a good person to try and shed some light on it.

I think I assumed wrong, I think you meant for it to be rhetorical, and that you just meant to get your point across that you don't think they should push their beliefs on people. That's fine I guess, I will stop this circus. :argument:


----------



## armyvern (23 Mar 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> ...
> No, it wasn't irrelevant drivel, I was trying to get you to stand in a pro-lifers shoes for a second, which you haven't done because you took the example so literally. :facepalm:
> ...



Keep slapping yourself.

My entire response to your silly question was:



> As to the part in yellow (which is actually your own brand of completely irrelevant drivel), my answer would be an unequivocal, "No, South Park is a cartoon and you watching television in the first world did not cause their deaths." Factually speaking, X number of children in Africa actually did die while I typed this ... actual living, breathing, children. Is that my fault? No.



As it is not my fault, is there any ethical and moral obligation to do anything about it? No. Could/should/do I do anything about that? Yes. Am I going to insist to others that they need to send their 30 bucks a month in to prevent death over there? No. 

You want to bring starving children in Africa into a discussion about abortion? Then here you go; here's where I say we start fixing this 100% preventable problem at:

Is there something morally existent that a certain entity that keeps preaching to those particular persons that they should not use birth control, should continue having children that can not be supported or fed, that they should go forth and multiply (so sayeth the Lord) as that is God's will, could do about it? You're damn right there is. And when their own morality sees the richest entity in the world step up, feed, financially support, and rear those children that their religious reasonings have caused to be created and be born into that place - you'll see me stepping up to do my bit to attempt to correct that situation that is 100% preventable. When they start supporting the right-to-_live_ of actual already-born human beings (not just those on death row  :) and preventing all those needless deaths in Africa caused by blind adherence to religious doctrine based morals, then they can start on the unborn.

That is not just a matter of childbirth either, it is a matter of health. Aids is also rampant in this area, yet some -claiming superior morality- do insist upon their subjects that practicing safe sex is a mortal sin itself (Note, TV has already stated he is not in this category). And yet, they have spoken out about practicing safe sex too as it would also prevent birth and thus be a sin. How moral and ethical is that?

The question is rhetorical and I do not actually want an answer from you. Morals are one thing, but if one wants to start tossing religion into the matter it becomes very, very different. There are ethical based morals and religious based morals.

I am quite sure this post is sure to draw wrath, I really don't care. The Pope wants all those children to be born, then allow him to ante up the funds and resources to support them. THAT would be the ethical thing to do if one wanted to claim superior "morality".


----------



## canada94 (23 Mar 2012)

I wanna say my opinion but I am afraid I'd be eaten alive LOL


----------



## armyvern (23 Mar 2012)

canada94 said:
			
		

> I wanna say my opinion but I am afraid I'd be eaten alive LOL



Contrary to popular belief, I am *not* a cannibal.  ;D

I hold no grudges against others just because we should have differing opinions on _whatever_ matters.


----------



## canada94 (23 Mar 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Contrary to popular belief, I am *not* a cannibal.  ;D
> 
> I hold no grudges against others just because we should have differing opinions on _whatever_ matters.



Hehe I'm just trying to lighten the mood, abortion is a very touchy issue for some people!


----------



## armyvern (23 Mar 2012)

canada94 said:
			
		

> Hehe I'm just trying to lighten the mood, abortion is a very touchy issue for some people!



It is indeed; that touchiness is certainly not limited to one side of the fence either.


----------



## canada94 (23 Mar 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> It is indeed; that touchiness is certainly not limited to one side of the fence either.



Very true! Both sides are quite true to their beliefs.. when me and my sister debate the issue it is all out war haha


----------



## Remius (23 Mar 2012)

Interesting stuff. 

I think that ultimately when you allow someone to choose, you aren't forcing anyone to do something.  They choose to do it based on their own convictions.

I wonder how the pro-lifers would feel if the state said that people under the age of 18 must abort. What I'm getting at is that that is how some pro-choicers feel they are being treated by some governments that are anti abortion.

I'll keep my personal opinion to myself but it helps to look at both sides of the coin.


----------



## Jed (23 Mar 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> .... By your argument, given how many fertilized embryos fail to implant, I've seen a tongue-in-cheek argument made that god is the greatest abortionist of all. However, I also could rack that up on this board of dumb things. The reality is that while the definition of life may well be debated, but the law of the land in most cases makes clear that it's birth. I don't think any woman can (let alone should) be forced to carry a pregnancy to term that for any reason whatsoever she does not want. It's that simple. If there's no access to legal, safe abortion, then women will seek solutions elsewhere, regardless of the potential costs. It's really that simple. I hope that these laws blow up in the faces of those who pushed them.



So, you feel that the law of the land supports that all the fetuses that are in the premature baby time frame are not human beings and therefore have no rights that are applied to all other members of the human race?

I don't think that is the case.

In the intersest of full disclosure, I personally agree with TV's opinion on the this issue. I am an RC by birth and upbringing, but am not a practising RC.  Having an adopted child of my own, I am very glad the birth mother made the personal sacrifice to give birth to my son. She is also very glad some 27 years later as she did not have any children later and she appreciates her decision every day.


----------



## TheHead (23 Mar 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> So, you feel that the law of the land supports that all the fetuses that are in the premature baby time frame are not human beings and therefore have no rights that are applied to all other members of the human race?
> 
> I don't think that is the case.
> 
> In the intersest of full disclosure, I personally agree with TV's opinion on the this issue. I am an RC by birth and upbringing, but am not a practising RC.  Having an adopted child of my own, I am very glad the birth mother made the personal sacrifice to give birth to my son. She is also very glad some 27 years later as she did not have any children later and she appreciates her decision every day.



Jed, under the Criminal Code of Canada 

223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not

(a) it has breathed;

(b) it has an independent circulation; or

(c) the navel string is severed.


I don't know what it's classified under in the United States though.  If someone has an official link that would be appreciated.


----------



## Privateer (23 Mar 2012)

Jed,

I think that that is, in essence, the current law of the land.  One of the more important cases on point is _Tremblay v. Daigle_, a 1989 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.  The full case report is here: http://canlii.ca/en/ca/scc/doc/1989/1989canlii33/1989canlii33.html

The headnote (a summary of the case, which is not prepared by the judges) reads:



> The parties ended their relationship after five months of cohabitation.  The appellant was 18 weeks pregnant at the time of the separation and decided to terminate her pregnancy.  The respondent, the father of the unborn child, obtained an interlocutory injunction from the Superior Court preventing her from having the abortion.  The trial judge found that a foetus is a "human being" under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and therefore enjoys a "right to life" under s. 1.  This conclusion, he added, was in harmony with the Civil Code's recognition of the foetus as a juridical person.  He then ruled that the respondent had the necessary "interest" to request the injunction.  The trial judge concluded, after considering the effect of the injunction on the appellant's rights under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and s. 1 of the Quebec Charter, that the foetus' right to life should prevail in the present case.  The injunction was upheld by a majority of the Court of Appeal.
> 
> Held:  The appeal should be allowed.
> 
> ...


----------



## armyvern (23 Mar 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> So, you feel that the law of the land supports that all the fetuses that are in the premature baby time frame are not human beings and therefore have no rights that are applied to all other members of the human race?
> 
> I don't think that is the case.
> 
> In the intersest of full disclosure, I personally agree with TV's opinion on the this issue. I am an RC by birth and upbringing, but am not a practising RC.  Having an adopted child of my own, I am very glad the birth mother made the personal sacrifice to give birth to my son. She is also very glad some 27 years later as she did not have any children later and she appreciates her decision every day.



Actually, that is exactly when the law of the land states life has begun. A child born prematurely is considered alive. An abortion at that same stage of the pregnancy is considered to be a "late-term abortion" and therefore quite different rules and requirements must exist to allow for that late-term abortion under the law <--- ie: these are very, very rare and usually only occur if there is immediate risk to life and limb of the mother. A miscarriage in the first trimester is _not_ equal to a premie being born alive. 

So, the law does indeed already recognize that a foetus becomes a viable lifeform later in the pregnancy; the point at where a foetus may possibly live outside of the womb (not that they all will, but _some_ will <--- those that do are considered your "premies"). This "life viability" does not occur in the first trimester of the pregnancy. That is why they are two separate things treated by the law in two entirely separate manners.

I'm glad to hear that your child's birth mother's choice has benefited and blessed your lives. I am glad she was able to make the _*choice *_that was what she considered best for herself.


----------



## cupper (23 Mar 2012)

TheHead said:
			
		

> Jed, under the Criminal Code of Canada
> 
> 223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not
> 
> ...



Unlike Canada which has a criminal code that applies across the entire nation, in the US each state has it's own criminal statute, as well as a federal statute.

But essentially they all appear to folow the same concept that a child, under criminal law, does not need to be born to be deemed a person for murder chagres to be proffered if a pregnant woman is killed, and the unborn child is lost.

From the standpoint of abortion law however, it is more nuanced and varies from state to state. Hence why the flavour of the month for the pro-life movement is to have states amend their constitutions to confer personhood from the time of conception. The problem is that the extention of personhood at that point opens up a huge can of worms, particularly with respect to individual rights of both the fetus and the mother, and possibly criminalizes what are legal and moral acts, like using methods of contraception which prevent implantation of the embryo, aborting an ectopic pregnancy, or even smoking during pregnancy.


----------



## ttlbmg (23 Mar 2012)

I have found that in my time on Earth, and call me a waffler, that I honestly don't know if I could decide, unequivocally, that I am a complete pro-life or pro-choice person. I've have laid witness to many girls that have chosen to use abortion as a method of birth control. I can remember saying to myself, how could someone that does that to themselves deserve to have a child when they "feel" like it? It is this point that I have stuck in the back of my mind that gives me pause to a pro-choice stance. But there are always people that will abuse anything. I think it also touches a part in me, when I speak to friends that have miscarried over the years. I see the pain from that and I can't help but pause and think, if life does not start at conception, then why would a woman otherwise feel that pain? But I don't know, I have never gone through that, I am lucky.

That being said, you can witness everyday, women who are victims of rape, women that have ectopic pregnancies, women that are unable to mentally or psychologically bear and raise children. And I think, why put someone through that? Who am I to say that a woman has no right over her body. The woman in me looks on legislation, meant to shame and guilt a woman into a pregnancy, and is disgusted that someone else is condescending enough to know what is best for every woman. 

That being said, I have always maintained a conscious decision, that planned or not, risk factors, possible complication, and regardless of results of genetic testing, I don't think I could have an abortion. However, I hope that every woman, faced with this choice, really thinks about her options. I think many do, as I don't think that an abortion is a light decision. I guess I am pro-thought then...


----------



## armyvern (24 Mar 2012)

Wow! ttlbmg, what town do you live in? 

I'm 43 years old and I know a few girls who have had abortions, yet not a single one did so as an act of "birth control". And I only know a few. You must come from some hedonistic place I've never heard of if you know tonnes who use it as a verifiable "birth control method". Holy cow.

But, it does raise a good point. Here in Canada, one does not see "abortion used a routine method of birth control" (unlike, I guess ttlbmg). Nor do we even see a "high" number of abortions occurring for other reasons. This is precisely because Canada has and does provide for sex education in our schools, and access to and availability of affordable birth control (note: I did not say "free" birth control however quite a few jurisdictions' health plans and insurance plans also provide for that). We do this precisely because we actually exercise that separation of Church and State. 

Unlike in the United States where many jurisdictions prohibit:
sex education in schools, 
any discussion of birth control methods other than abstinence until marriage,
access to or availability of any type of affordable (note again, I didn't say "free") birth control to persons under age of majority.

That's right, no safe sex allowed if you're under 18 in some states - (well, No LEGAL safe sex allowed if you're under 18 anyway)! Can you imagine having to show ID to prove your 18 to buy a condom!!?

The above restrictions are based upon religious morals. For if they were not, discussion of condoms and access to purchase them would certainly be allowed based upon sexual health and the prevention of disease. Unfortunately, this also overlaps with the religious view of contraception is bad and evil as it prevents conception from occurring. So, in some places, that religious view has actually won.

It is estimated that 22% of pregnancies in the United States end in abortion. Texas having one of the highest rates (as does California, but they also rule in population) and states where condom access etc is restricted to legal age. States such as North and South Dakota see the lowest rates - coinciding with states where there actually is a separation of church from state.

Studies have also shown that the abortion rate has dropped an average of 2% per year since the majority of states got rid of laws that restricted access to affordable birth control ~ 1990.

I think that's telling. Anybody want less abortions? Then start teaching kids about birth control and make sure that they can access various forms of affordable birth control. Abstinence is not for everyone (Obviously!! Just look at the abortion stats!). For any state to take the religious stance as law any deny this education, access, and affordability, then further attempt to deny via "having doctors lie to their patients if they think it may make them chose to have an abortion [hey Arizona!]" abortions or make women lay through an ultrasound while the doctor drones on about "life" are ultimately the direct cause of their own statistics! Separate the church from the state and get it over with already. 

Unless and until that happens in the US ... politics there will always be this retarded and we'll continue to see 16 and 17 year old American kids posting questions about sex to the internet and asking "what is AIDs?" (yep, just google it) and asking if anybody knows any stores that would sell them a condom without an ID card - or whether anyone knows an 18 year old who is willing to go in and buy condoms for them. That amazes me.

Thank fuck I live in Canada where we keep that religious stuff out of our laws.


----------



## ttlbmg (24 Mar 2012)

You would be surprised. 

To contradict your statement on sexual education in schools, I would say this. I am a junior high teacher, and have taught health education previously. Where I taught, there was no talk of sexual education classes. In some schools and school districts, if there are a majority of parents that believe that sexual health education should not be taught, it isn't, plain and simple. (and keep in mind this was not a stereotypical rural setting- it was in a larger urban area) There in lies the problem however, in both Canada and the US in regards to this issue. Those that do not believe in educating their children don't. Those children then go on to make poor choices and endure the consequences. That being said, I don't think that I have the right to push my opinion that "birth control and contraceptives are what you're children need." If I do that, I am no less ignorant or condescending. 

Abortions are a different thought process, feeling, and decision for all people. To each his own. That being said, I don't look down on someone as ignorant, God-fearing, backwoods, or brainwashed if they do not agree with it.


----------



## armyvern (24 Mar 2012)

ttlbmg said:
			
		

> You would be surprised.
> 
> To contradict your statement on sexual education in schools, I would say this. I am a junior high teacher, and have taught health education previously. Where I taught, there was no talk of sexual education classes. In some schools and school districts, if there are a majority of parents that believe that sexual health education should not be taught, it isn't, plain and simple. (and keep in mind this was not a stereotypical rural setting- it was in a larger urban area) There in lies the problem however, in both Canada and the US in regards to this issue. Those that do not believe in educating their children don't. Those children then go on to make poor choices and endure the consequences. That being said, I don't think that I have the right to push my opinion that "birth control and contraceptives are what you're children need." If I do that, I am no less ignorant or condescending.
> 
> Abortions are a different thought process, feeling, and decision for all people. To each his own. That being said, I don't look down on someone as ignorant, God-fearing, backwoods, or brainwashed if they do not agree with it.



Here's where we'll differ: educating someone about sexual health, birth control, condoms does not equal "pushing onto them that this is what they need" because we also cover abstinence etc. What that education does is allow those kids to:

Make their own informed decisions of what may/may not be right for them. 

In no way whatsoever, do I find that informing those kids of all the choices, abstinence included, makes me ignorant or condescending. Refusing to allow them to be informed of anything except religious 'abstinence until marriage' on the other hand ...


----------



## Journeyman (24 Mar 2012)

ttlbmg said:
			
		

> Abortions.....I don't look down on someone as ignorant, God-fearing, backwoods, or brainwashed if they do not agree with it.


I do.


----------



## ttlbmg (24 Mar 2012)

My problem with sexual health education within the school system is the bias that can be held. It is very difficult for a teacher, educating young people, on proper sexual health education. I do not believe, for the most part, that proper sexual health education is being taught in schools. (that is an entirely different topic though!) Inevitably, a teacher, will teach sexual health education, and almost any subject, with a bias. You can present all options, abstinence, birth control, condoms, Plan B, IUDs, but there will always be that kid, that looks at you and says, "but really what do YOU think, what do YOU practice?" Your opinion, is, unfortunately, out there, and that will impact a child's decision. It is a slippery slope. 

In my opinion, proper sexual health education should start in the home, but I am not honestly sure if that occurs. However, I am woefully underqualified to pose as the morality police and dictate what parents should and shouldn't share with their children. it is a heavy subject to talk with young people about.

As for people being backwoods or God-fearing because they believe in abortion? There are many people, atheist, agnostic, or otherwise, that do not believe in abortion. I don't look down on them, just as I don't look down on someone choosing to terminate a pregnancy. See, my house is made of glass, and I really don't like rocks.


----------



## armyvern (24 Mar 2012)

ttlbmg said:
			
		

> My problem with sexual health education within the school system is the bias that can be held. It is very difficult for a teacher, educating young people, on proper sexual health education. I do not believe, for the most part, that proper sexual health education is being taught in schools. (that is an entirely different topic though!) Inevitably, a teacher, will teach sexual health education, and almost any subject, with a bias. You can present all options, abstinence, birth control, condoms, Plan B, IUDs, but there will always be that kid, that looks at you and says, "but really what do YOU think, what do YOU practice?" Your opinion, is, unfortunately, out there, and that will impact a child's decision. It is a slippery slope.
> 
> In my opinion, proper sexual health education should start in the home, but I am not honestly sure if that occurs. However, I am woefully underqualified to pose as the morality police and dictate what parents should and shouldn't share with their children. it is a heavy subject to talk with young people about.
> 
> As for people being backwoods or God-fearing because they believe in abortion? There are many people, atheist, agnostic, or otherwise, that do not believe in abortion. I don't look down on them, just as I don't look down on someone choosing to terminate a pregnancy. See, my house is made of glass, and I really don't like rocks.



You know, teachers are asked their opinions on many matters, probably every day, by their students. I'd think that most teacher's would answer in an honest and forthright manner, "What I choose is my choice; you have to make your own choices based upon what's right for you."

You do not NOT teach something because someone might express an opinion. Nor do you make a law on what can be taught (or not) based on just one opinion. You teach ALL the options and keep the opinions out of it. Failing to allow the teaching of all the options means that you've allowed "an opinion" to determine what you will and will not educate those kids to; clearly, one of those major opinions is religious and allowing that opinion to rule and ensure that kids not be taught any/all the other options is not on.

Yes, I realize that all persons who believe in "abstinence is the best policy" do not feel that way due to religious opinion, but those people are NOT the ones trying to block the teaching of the other options. Don't want to get pregnant or end up with a sexually transmitted disease, then don't have sex. That'd be the obvious choice. But it is just a choice and just my opinion. So, I see no reasons why kids should not be taught all the choices because I know some/most simply are not going to abstain.

Regarding the glass house comment and the comment you also made in your earlier post:
I don't feel those who are anti-abortion are god fearing and backwoods and I certainly haven't said anything close to such in this thread to date ... just as all pro-life people don't think (and call) women who would have abortions godless and/or murdering baby-killers. See? That works both ways doesn't it?


----------



## ttlbmg (24 Mar 2012)

Yes, teachers are asked, everyday, on a regular basis, all sorts of opinion based questions on a number of things that most people wouldn't ask their friends and colleagues in social situations. And yes, teachers have to answer. Answering you have to make your own choice to a thirteen year old about their sexual health and contraceptive choices doesn't really satisfy that child. And many times, teachers are disciplined for expressing an opinion to their students or teaching something that they "shouldn't" to their students. However, that is not the point I am making. The point I am making is that the current curriculum for sexual health, equated with the time devoted to health education in general, coupled with the lack of direct monitoring within the education system, has left a great deal of sexual health education an untouched subject within our system. So many parents are left feeling as though the school has taught their child something, when that may not be the case. And in some districts and school systems, parents have actually fought to have their children removed from sexual health education, or to have that portion of health education, not taught in schools. I am saying the system is inadequate. This means that many young women and men are then making decisions about their sexual health without knowing the full story. What I am saying in terms of being a teacher, is that teachers can have a big impact on a child's thoughts and opinions. I don't know what I would hope a teacher would say to my son or daughter on this issue. 

Does that mean showing a young woman or man an abortion will "fix" this problem? Does that mean that showing someone an ultrasound will give them a "better" understanding of the decision they have to make? No. Honestly, I think that there is a gap more in the area of possible father rights in terms of abortions. And jump on me if you will, but I think that there should be more of a focus on a prospective father knowing about the pregnancy, so that he may be involved in the decision making process. I'm not saying he should be driving the bus, but I think sometimes the male's feelings are completely disregarded in situations.

In terms of the glass house reference, that was made in regards to the poster below you, who specified looking down on people. Yes it goes both ways. I think that anyone that tries to push their agenda or opinion onto anyone needs to step back from that. We are all entitled to a viewpoint, regardless of that viewpoint. In the same token, we are all owed respect in regards to what our view might be.


----------



## armyvern (24 Mar 2012)

ttlbmg said:
			
		

> Yes, teachers are asked, everyday, on a regular basis, all sorts of opinion based questions on a number of things that most people wouldn't ask their friends and colleagues in social situations. And yes, teachers have to answer. Answering you have to make your own choice to a thirteen year old about their sexual health and contraceptive choices doesn't really satisfy that child. And many times, teachers are disciplined for expressing an opinion to their students or teaching something that they "shouldn't" to their students. However, that is not the point I am making. The point I am making is that the current curriculum for sexual health, equated with the time devoted to health education in general, coupled with the lack of direct monitoring within the education system, has left a great deal of sexual health education an untouched subject within our system. So many parents are left feeling as though the school has taught their child something, when that may not be the case. And in some districts and school systems, parents have actually fought to have their children removed from sexual health education, or to have that portion of health education, not taught in schools. I am saying the system is inadequate. This means that many young women and men are then making decisions about their sexual health without knowing the full story. What I am saying in terms of being a teacher, is that teachers can have a big impact on a child's thoughts and opinions. I don't know what I would hope a teacher would say to my son or daughter on this issue.
> 
> Does that mean showing a young woman or man an abortion will "fix" this problem? Does that mean that showing someone an ultrasound will give them a "better" understanding of the decision they have to make? No. Honestly, I think that there is a gap more in the area of possible father rights in terms of abortions. And jump on me if you will, but I think that there should be more of a focus on a prospective father knowing about the pregnancy, so that he may be involved in the decision making process. I'm not saying he should be driving the bus, but I think sometimes the male's feelings are completely disregarded in situations.
> 
> In terms of the glass house reference, that was made in regards to the poster below you, who specified looking down on people. Yes it goes both ways. I think that anyone that tries to push their agenda or opinion onto anyone needs to step back from that. We are all entitled to a viewpoint, regardless of that viewpoint. In the same token, we are all owed respect in regards to what our view might be.



First, the poster below me actually only made that comment based upon a quote from you. You brought it up. Why? In relation to what? Who were you speaking to?

Second, sounds like your local education system may be a wee bit skewed; that can be corrected via local, municple, school board elections etc. Where my kids went to school, in many boards, this didn't seem to be a problem. As for a 13 year old NOT being satisfied with a teachers answer of "you need to make your own choices and decide what's right for you" ... too bad for the 13 year old. 13 year old OFTEN do not get answers they like or agree with - ask ANY mom or dad of one, on a wide variety of subjects. It's NOT rocket science although you are trying to make it out to be. It is our jobs to educate kids NOT tell them what decisions I or they must make. It never has been.

WTF!!?? On the yellow bit? Where did you pull this from? Not one person in this thread has said that we should teach girls or boys ANYTHING about abortion, let alone that it will "fix" things. WTF!? 

Suggest you need to re-read the thread because you're now pulling things out of your ass.


----------



## ttlbmg (24 Mar 2012)

The "problem" the way that many conservative Americans view it, is that by showing someone considering an abortion a video on the procedure, or by requiring someone to have an internal ultrasound to view the fetus, that they will be overtaken by emotion and a sense of bonding, and therefore reconsider having an abortion. I was hoping to simply get back on the topic at hand. 

It seems that you are taking my words out of context, and I am sorry you feel that way. The ironic part, I believe that we are on the same or similar sides of the fence, albeit our arguments in favor or against are different. I can tell you are very passionate one way. If nothing else, my minimal life experience has taught me to look at all sides. That is what I am simply trying to accomplish here. Just as I don't want to have someone impress their views upon me, I do not want to impress my opinions and beliefs on someone else. 

Also, what you experience, one school system to another varies. Not all districts and provinces are the same. The literature put out by the province, division, or school is the ideal. Not all schools meet up with this for a variety of reasons. Again though, that is off topic, and a lack of education of sexual health and parents' refusal to allow their child that educational experience has nothing to do with anti-abortion or pro-abortion laws currently in the United States. I could rant on for years about the problems of the school system in Canada- but that is for another time and place.


----------



## cupper (25 Mar 2012)

ttlbmg said:
			
		

> and a lack of education of sexual health and parents' refusal to allow their child that educational experience has nothing to do with anti-abortion or pro-abortion laws currently in the United States.



Actually it has more to do with the issue than you may think or be aware.

Sex ed is a very touchy subject when it comes to the religious socially conservative right, who form the vocal majority in the pro-life debate. The majority feel that it should be the responsibility of the parents only to teach their kids about sexuality and related issues. There is a very significant push to have abstinence only education as the only form of sexual education allowed in schools.

As such, it is a lack of information, or misguided information that leads to a large number of unwanted teen pregnancies. Which leads right back to the pro-choice / pro life debate.


----------



## armyvern (25 Mar 2012)

ttlbmg said:
			
		

> It seems that you are taking my words out of context, and I am sorry you feel that way. The ironic part, I believe that we are on the same or similar sides of the fence, albeit our arguments in favor or against are different. I can tell you are very passionate one way. If nothing else, my minimal life experience has taught me to look at all sides. That is what I am simply trying to accomplish here. Just as I don't want to have someone impress their views upon me, I do not want to impress my opinions and beliefs on someone else.
> ...



You're right. I have already stated that I would never/could never have an abortion. That would never be the right choice for me. That does not mean that it would/could never be the right choice for someone else. As to the other side, I already laid out in my very first post in this thread why I do not agree with the "life from conception" - I have considered it, but for me - science, and survivability of a first trimester foetus have led to a different logical conclusion.

It is a choice. Just as they would never tell or push on me that I must have an abortion, I will not push on them that they must not have an abortion. Two way street - not just on my part. Anything less is hypocritical.


----------



## ttlbmg (25 Mar 2012)

I agree with you on that point that it is a slippery slope. In terms of my children, I think it is my responsibility to teach them proper sexual health education. I think this comes easily for me, as I do not have to wrestle with a religious belief, and I think that would be a difficult thing to face. I think it also becomes an issue of access though as well. But then do you inform students about that as well? Teens can, without parental consent, obtain a prescription for contraceptives. And ideally, I would hope that a teen, choosing to have sex, would have the maturity to go out and access birth control. But then does that allotment of privacy out a wedge between parent and child? Would you want to know if your daughter was on birth control? I think I would so that we could talk about that. And again, I always use the example of a young girl, and I wish sometimes that I would put more thought in terms of young men. It is odd, I have two sons, and people always remark that I am lucky because neither will ever come home as a pregnant teen. I would hope that this mindset would change, and that not only would the weight of responsibility shift off the female, perhaps there would be more of a dialogue in terms of male parental rights. 

I guess in all this talk, the point I hope to make is that I DON'T want to make that decision for someone else. As awkward as it sounds, for myself, I was pro-life-I felt I would not get an abortion, regardless of the circumstance I was in thankfully I never had to make this decision). For other people, I am pro-choice. I would hope that the choice would be well thought out, but I can't and do not want to dictate what other people do.


----------



## PMedMoe (27 Mar 2012)

This is pretty good:  It Matters to Me


----------



## ttlbmg (27 Mar 2012)

Interesting, and so relevent. I hope that this image is changing. (I'd love to see shows like Jersey Shore go off the air! That and Sixteen and Pregnant- I was hoping at one point that show would send a better message, but it doesn't seem to, though I will admit I have never sat through an entire episode) Do you think that this is as prevalent in Canada as it is in the US?


----------



## PMedMoe (27 Mar 2012)

ttlbmg said:
			
		

> Do you think that this is as prevalent in Canada as it is in the US?



If the number of young girls I see running around like it's "Dress Like a Hooker" day (thanks JM) every day, is any indication, I'd say yes.


----------



## ttlbmg (27 Mar 2012)

Ha, I guess so. I sometimes think that we have a little less of the conservative-traditional viewpoint within the government that we see in the US. Although so much of their culture seems to leak into Canada.


----------



## medicineman (27 Mar 2012)

ttlbmg said:
			
		

> Interesting, and so relevent. I hope that this image is changing. (I'd love to see shows like Jersey Shore go off the air! That and Sixteen and Pregnant- I was hoping at one point that show would send a better message, but it doesn't seem to, though I will admit I have never sat through an entire episode) Do you think that this is as prevalent in Canada as it is in the US?



Hmm let me think...we had a teenager when I was in training that delivered her second kid, and was only 15.  Helped deliver a number of kids with moms in the 16-18 age range, and have seen my fair share of teenage chlamydia and gonorrhea.  I'd have to say yes.

MM


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Mar 2012)

Tangent here: Just a question.

Can teen pregnancy be generational. By this I mean can there be a history of teen pregancy within a family.

Grandma - married, pregnant at sixteen - not unusual in "the olden days"
Mom - same story but she was nineteen
GrandDaughter - same story as Mom
Great Granddaughters - pregant/unmarried at sixteen or so.

Just a question.

Thanks


----------



## medicineman (28 Mar 2012)

I wouldn't say it's generational, but something can be said about kids getting the idea that it's acceptable because everyone else in the family did (you know that weird way of thinking that teenagers have).  Take it one step further and if you live in an area where it's the norm, then not only is it acceptable, it's apparently what's supposed to be done.

MM


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Mar 2012)

Jim, 

from personal observation I can say that in Indiana, where I worked for a couple of years, 36 year old grandmothers were not uncommon.  The difference between your proposal and their situation was that everybody was married.

Baby = 0
Mother = 18
Grandmother = 36
Great Grandmother = 54
Great Great Grandmother = 72
Great Great Great Grandmother = 90

All perfectly legal, and traditional, and welcomed.  And often you found the entire extended family living within a couple of blocks of each other.   

The difference is that Great Great Great Grandmother may have been married as young as 15.

As Mr. Campbell is fond of saying:  Culture matters.


----------



## PMedMoe (29 Mar 2012)

Oklahoma judge overrules state law requiring ultrasound before abortion

An Oklahoma County judge has overruled a state law requiring women seeking abortions to have an ultrasound of the fetus before the abortion, according to court documents.

District Judge Brian Dixon's clerk confirmed the decision Wednesday, saying the judge ruled that the law was "unconstitutional and unenforceable."

More at link


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Mar 2012)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Oklahoma judge overrules state law requiring ultrasound before abortion
> 
> An Oklahoma County judge has overruled a state law requiring women seeking abortions to have an ultrasound of the fetus before the abortion, according to court documents.
> 
> ...




Concur


----------



## MAJONES (29 Mar 2012)

Techno's argument is well put.  Every person has the right to control their own body.  The conflict arises when what you want to do with your body affects somebody else.  The real question is when does a fetus become a person?  Once the fetus is a person it is no longer just a part of a woman's body.
Another way to look at this is through a heirarchy of rights; certain rights take precedence over others.  This is well established in law.  Once the fetus is a person it has the right to safety of person.  It is pretty clear that, (in most cases), this right is going to take precedence over a woman's right to do what she wants with her body.
As was stated above, the whole crux of this problem is determining when the fetus makes the transition from a being a mass of cells to being a person.  It would be difficult to argue that it becomes a person at the time of conception.  It would be just as difficult to argue that it is not a person until it is born.  Quite a dilemma.
As for Techno's pictures; never be afraid to show it like it is.


----------



## PMedMoe (29 Mar 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> I'll remember that next time there's a thread on STDs or beheadings.



Exactly.

As far as when the fetus is a person: I tend to agree with ArmyVern, when it can survive _outside_ of the mother's body (*my* opinion only).


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Mar 2012)

Let's start off with a lock for the moment - more to follow, I'm sure.

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## armyvern (28 May 2017)

Brihard said:
			
		

> And so the CPC have elected another anti-abortion, same-sex-marriage opposing, regressive social conservation as leader. ...
> The CPC needs to be courting my generation better. They failed to do so. The old social-regressive dog just don't hunt anymore with us...



You do realize that Parliament saw a free vote on the matter of same-sex marriage and that every single party had members who voted to oppose it as well as those who supported it?  

Abortion and same-sex marriage are NOT relegated realms of one political party or another.  I'm a social libertarian who happens to be a  staunch fiscal conservative as well.  The social side is already enshrined in law and well-protected, but the requirement to be responsible with the tax payers dime is not and ergo the Liberals and NDP will not be seeing my vote any time soon.

So tired of the "social-regressive" label put on anything Big C or little c.  What bunk - superior morality is not the domain of the Liberals or NDP alone.


----------



## RocketRichard (28 May 2017)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You do realize that Parliament saw a free vote on the matter of same-sex marriage and that every single party had members who voted to oppose it as well as those who supported it?
> 
> Abortion and same-sex marriage are NOT relegated realms of one political party or another.  I'm a social libertarian who happens to be a  staunch fiscal conservative as well.  The social side is already enshrined in law and well-protected, but the requirement to be responsible with the tax payers dime is not and ergo the Liberals and NDP will not be seeing my vote any time soon.
> 
> So tired of the "social-regressive" label put on anything Big C or little c.  What bunk - superior morality is not the domain of the Liberals or NDP alone.


Well that escalated. Can't we all just get along


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## armyvern (28 May 2017)

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> Well that escalated. Can't we all just get along
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Escalation? No.  Just tired of the same old morally superior inferior stereotypes that always come up when discussing anything conservative.  It's crap.  I know homophobic Liberals, NDPers and Conservatives. Even Trudeau 1.0 only wanted to legalize abortion under very certain conditions.  Courts sorted that out.


----------



## RocketRichard (28 May 2017)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Escalation? No.  Just tired of the same old morally superior inferior stereotypes that always come up when discussing anything conservative.  It's crap.  I know homophobic Liberals, NDPers and Conservatives.


The issue of late is labelling people as left/right/con/lib etc. I agree with parts of all parties and disagree with others. Come election time vote as one decides (ideology, party, individual, issue etc) using all info available. This whole right vs left stuff is not on. Have a great day. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Loachman (28 May 2017)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Courts sorted that out.



Not really. The Supreme Court merely trashed the law of the time, and nobody's dared/bothered to replace that legislation since then, so it's just a free-for-all.

And no Western civilization produces enough children to maintain its population anymore.


----------



## armyvern (29 May 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Not really. The Supreme Court merely trashed the law of the time, and nobody's dared/bothered to replace that legislation since then, so it's just a free-for-all.



I'd disagree.  The Morgentaler case pretty much summed up the end to waspy men deciding what was right or wrong for my vagina and made it "my" choice.  This woman is extremely thankful for that.



> And no Western civilization produces enough children to maintain its population anymore.



Blame Henry.   >  Seriously though, you're correct on this front.


----------



## Loachman (29 May 2017)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> The Morgentaler case pretty much summed up the end to waspy men deciding what was right or wrong for my vagina and made it "my" choice.  This woman is extremely thankful for that.



The persons with the most stake in this matter, those who _*most*_ deserve a choice, are completely deprived of that choice. They would not likely be so thankful, were they able to express themselves.

There are many women who are pro-life as well, and also not as thankful for that decision as some others.

And every living person should be thankful that their mothers did not choose to end their lives prematurely.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 May 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> And every living person should be thankful that their mothers did not choose to end their lives prematurely.



However, would they know otherwise?


----------



## armyvern (29 May 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> There are many women who are pro-life as well, and also not as thankful for that decision as some others.



And that is their choice.  That's the trick.  _Our_ bodies - _Our_ choice.  I've never had to make that choice, but I am damn thankful it's mine to make.  That personal choice bears no political stripe.  

Imagine if women put into law that all 'ye men shall have vasectomies to ensure no abortions occurred.


----------



## Scott (29 May 2017)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Imagine if women put into law that all 'ye men shall have vasectomies to ensure no abortions occurred.



Oh, Snap!

Edit: or _snip_...


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 May 2017)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And that is their choice.  That's the trick.  _Our_ bodies - _Our_ choice.  I've never had to make that choice, but I am damn thankful it's mine to make.  That personal choice bears no political stripe.
> 
> Imagine if women put into law that all 'ye men shall have vasectomies to ensure no abortions occurred.



:goodpost:

As a man I have absolutely no business telling a woman how and what to do with her body and her health, unless I'm her physician.  I'll leave that nonsense to the Taliban and other like folks who like to interfere.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 May 2017)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And that is their choice.  That's the trick.  _Our_ bodies - _Our_ choice.  I've never had to make that choice, but I am damn thankful it's mine to make.  That personal choice bears no political stripe.
> 
> Imagine if women put into law that all 'ye men shall have vasectomies to ensure no abortions occurred.



When you remove the "A" word and look at it from a view of competing rights, how we legally determine when life begins is legally "neat" but not based on any science. I used to be completely pro-life, now having watched my daughters in the wombs on ultrasound and felt them create a bit of a personality even in the womb, I have a somewhat modified view. I personally believe that by the third trimester the fetus should be gaining some rights, which would effect it's standing in society with the mother and father as well. Changing the "beginning of life" opens up a whole host of issues, including child support, care of the unborn, etc. 

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/can-a-child-die-before-it-is-born


----------



## FSTO (6 Oct 2017)

So according to the current government of the day there can be no nuances in opinion? Can a woman be personally against abortion but is okay with a woman's right to choose? Does that make her pro or anti choice?


----------



## BeyondTheNow (6 Oct 2017)

FSTO said:
			
		

> So according to the current government of the day there can be no nuances in opinion? Can a woman be personally against abortion but is okay with a woman's right to choose? Does that make her pro or anti choice?



I fall into the category you have stated. For me personally, I don't feel it's an option. But I feel very strongly that every woman's body is her own and I am in absolutely no position to judge another's decisions. Whether I agree or not is irrelevant. It's not my life and I certainly have my own history of sh*t that others would be highly critical of. So, I guess that makes me pro choice?


----------



## mariomike (6 Oct 2017)

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> I certainly have my own history of sh*t that others would be highly critical of.



 We are not judgemental here. 

Speaking of abortion, how's this for hypocrisy? Saw it in yesterday's news,

5 Oct 2017
Anti-Abortion Congressman Resigns After Allegedly Urging Mistress to Get an Abortion
http://time.com/4971442/tim-murphy-congress-resignation/
(WASHINGTON) — Republican Rep. Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania, an anti-abortion lawmaker who allegedly urged his mistress to have an abortion when he thought she was pregnant, is resigning from Congress.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (6 Oct 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> We are not judgemental here.



Oh come now, I know that's not true.   >


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Oct 2017)

FSTO said:
			
		

> So according to the current government of the day there can be no nuances in opinion? Can a woman be personally against abortion but is okay with a woman's right to choose? Does that make her pro or anti choice?



Your confusing "free thinking" with "right thinking".


----------

