Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth looks to reopen abortion d
Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Unsound @ Sun Jan 01, 2012 12:04 pm
I agree. We all disagree with one policy or another. It's just unfortunate that so few people are smart enough to see that the ones that I approve of are the right ones.
Dayseed @ Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:44 am
Sorry folks, I didn't read all 6 pages of the thread, so if this point has been duplicated on here, I apologize.
In studying the abortion debate, and specifically criticisms of it, I can't help but come to the conclusion that one of the main, if not the primary, goals, of anti-abortion legislation is to punish women for having sex.
1. Trying to rebrand a fetus as a person is disingenuous. This was proposed in Mississippi in 2011 and was resoundly defeated. There's no medical evidence to support that a fetus at an early stage of development resembles a new-born with respect to cognitive ability. However, it would have the profound effect of attempting to criminalize miscarriages or forms of contraception.
2. Anti-abortion sentiment/rhetoric also tends to focus on abstinence only education. While not a component of anti-abortion legislation, those who propose it often carry this torch as well. Abstinence only education tends to denigrate other forms of contraception leaving two horny teenagers with the old withdrawal method as their only back-up. This again leaves a woman with the consequence of sex; a child.
3. Religious underpinnings. I have yet to see arguments for abolishing abortion that don't, at some point, resort back to religious arguments. Religion is no reason to enact legislation ever, especially when that religion just wants women in their place, provided that place is the kitchen with a baby on the hip.
The bottom line in Canada is that any attempt to limit/abolish abortion is a direct assault on both the reproductive freedom of women and their place in society as well. Those who condone it should take a deep introspective look at whether they believe women should be allowed to have sex without consequence. You may be surprised at the correlation.
fifeboy @ Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:19 am
Dayseed Dayseed:
Sorry folks, I didn't read all 6 pages of the thread, so if this point has been duplicated on here, I apologize.
In studying the abortion debate, and specifically criticisms of it, I can't help but come to the conclusion that one of the main, if not the primary, goals, of anti-abortion legislation is to punish women for having sex.
1. Trying to rebrand a fetus as a person is disingenuous. This was proposed in Mississippi in 2011 and was resoundly defeated. There's no medical evidence to support that a fetus at an early stage of development resembles a new-born with respect to cognitive ability. However, it would have the profound effect of attempting to criminalize miscarriages or forms of contraception.
2. Anti-abortion sentiment/rhetoric also tends to focus on abstinence only education. While not a component of anti-abortion legislation, those who propose it often carry this torch as well. Abstinence only education tends to denigrate other forms of contraception leaving two horny teenagers with the old withdrawal method as their only back-up. This again leaves a woman with the consequence of sex; a child.
3. Religious underpinnings. I have yet to see arguments for abolishing abortion that don't, at some point, resort back to religious arguments. Religion is no reason to enact legislation ever, especially when that religion just wants women in their place, provided that place is the kitchen with a baby on the hip.
The bottom line in Canada is that any attempt to limit/abolish abortion is a direct assault on both the reproductive freedom of women and their place in society as well. Those who condone it should take a deep introspective look at whether they believe women should be allowed to have sex without consequence. You may be surprised at the correlation.
Well said!
In studying the abortion debate, and specifically criticisms of it, I can't help but come to the conclusion that one of the main, if not the primary, goals, of anti-abortion legislation is to punish women for having sex.
1. Trying to rebrand a fetus as a person is disingenuous. This was proposed in Mississippi in 2011 and was resoundly defeated. There's no medical evidence to support that a fetus at an early stage of development resembles a new-born with respect to cognitive ability. However, it would have the profound effect of attempting to criminalize miscarriages or forms of contraception.
2. Anti-abortion sentiment/rhetoric also tends to focus on abstinence only education. While not a component of anti-abortion legislation, those who propose it often carry this torch as well. Abstinence only education tends to denigrate other forms of contraception leaving two horny teenagers with the old withdrawal method as their only back-up. This again leaves a woman with the consequence of sex; a child.
3. Religious underpinnings. I have yet to see arguments for abolishing abortion that don't, at some point, resort back to religious arguments. Religion is no reason to enact legislation ever, especially when that religion just wants women in their place, provided that place is the kitchen with a baby on the hip.
The bottom line in Canada is that any attempt to limit/abolish abortion is a direct assault on both the reproductive freedom of women and their place in society as well. Those who condone it should take a deep introspective look at whether they believe women should be allowed to have sex without consequence. You may be surprised at the correlation.
andyt @ Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:52 am
Dayseed Dayseed:
In studying the abortion debate, and specifically criticisms of it, I can't help but come to the conclusion that one of the main, if not the primary, goals, of anti-abortion legislation is to punish women for having sex.
Dayseed Dayseed:
1. Trying to rebrand a fetus as a person is disingenuous. This was proposed in Mississippi in 2011 and was resoundly defeated. There's no medical evidence to support that a fetus at an early stage of development resembles a new-born with respect to cognitive ability. However, it would have the profound effect of attempting to criminalize miscarriages or forms of contraception.
Early stage of development, I agree. But where does human cognitive ability begin? There's no magic moment as the baby pops out that cognition starts. That's what this MP is trying to accomplish with his bill - use science to decide when cognition begins. Dayseed Dayseed:
2. Anti-abortion sentiment/rhetoric also tends to focus on abstinence only education. While not a component of anti-abortion legislation, those who propose it often carry this torch as well. Abstinence only education tends to denigrate other forms of contraception leaving two horny teenagers with the old withdrawal method as their only back-up. This again leaves a woman with the consequence of sex; a child.
No argument here.Dayseed Dayseed:
3. Religious underpinnings. I have yet to see arguments for abolishing abortion that don't, at some point, resort back to religious arguments. Religion is no reason to enact legislation ever, especially when that religion just wants women in their place, provided that place is the kitchen with a baby on the hip.
I'm against the death penalty, and has nothing to do with religion - it's a humanist argument. Same could be true for some people who are against abortion. Being anti-religion is no reason to not enact legislation either.Dayseed Dayseed:
The bottom line in Canada is that any attempt to limit/abolish abortion is a direct assault on both the reproductive freedom of women and their place in society as well. Those who condone it should take a deep introspective look at whether they believe women should be allowed to have sex without consequence. You may be surprised at the correlation.
We're the only western country with no abortion law. Are all those countries assaulting the reproductive freedom of women and their place in society? I do think we should have reasonable limits on abortion. We actually do, since I believe no Canadian doctor will do late term abortion except for a medical emergence and none will do partial birth abortions. But we should codify that, IMO.
Dayseed @ Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:00 pm
andyt andyt:
How do you get that conclusion - you don't think pro-life people are sincere?
Not really. While I don't doubt that some people find abortion distasteful on up to ghastly, it isn't their body. That said, I haven't seen/heard an argument against abortion that doesn't include punishing women for promiscuity or promoting religious beliefs.
$1:
Early stage of development, I agree. But where does human cognitive ability begin? There's no magic moment as the baby pops out that cognition starts. That's what this MP is trying to accomplish with his bill - use science to decide when cognition begins.
Which is an interesting topic for neuroscientists, not parliamentarians. Besides, you're assuming there's an answer to when cognition begins. When does adulthood begin? When you've got a definite answer for that one, let me know.
$1:
No argument here.
Cool.
$1:
I'm against the death penalty, and has nothing to do with religion - it's a humanist argument. Same could be true for some people who are against abortion. Being anti-religion is no reason to not enact legislation either.
Firstly, I don't see being religious as being opposed to the death penalty. I would argue instead that the more evangelical the state, the more likely they are to have the death penalty legalized. You may be correct, you could be an atheist and anti-abortion; I haven't seen it but the salient thrust was that anti-abortion legislation is a veiled form of "woman-control" by keeping sexual consequences alive.
I disagree. Being anti-religious is a fine reason to enact legislation. The person who is anti-religious is probably going to promote bills that don't favour any religion over another.
$1:
We're the only western country with no abortion law. Are all those countries assaulting the reproductive freedom of women and their place in society? I do think we should have reasonable limits on abortion. We actually do, since I believe no Canadian doctor will do late term abortion except for a medical emergence and none will do partial birth abortions. But we should codify that, IMO.
Actually, we do have abortion laws on the books but the Supreme Court struck them down. No government has made it a policy point to revisit abortion laws, which should tell us that we're a very progressive country to be envied.
Why codify abortions at all? Why leave it up to parliamentarians and the whims of the populace to decide how we're going to legislate a woman's body? If you're concerned about who's going to pay for the abortion, then that's a provincial health insurance policy question.
Otherwise, it's none of your damn business what a woman does with her body. Unless you want to control it that is.
andyt @ Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:14 pm
Most anti-abortion arguments I've seen are about the killing of an unborn human. I actually find that hard to argue with - an 8 month old foetus certainly seems human to me, and is viable outside the womb.
We're not progressive, we're just to chicken to revisit the debate. When do you see that killing a child becomes wrong? Our laws say it's murder as soon as it has completely popped out, but before the cord is cut. So partial birth abortions are not prohibited at the moment. Are you OK with that? 8 month abortions just because the woman decides it's her body and she wants to get rid of the foetus? To me that is too extreme, I think we should find some compromise position.
Dayseed @ Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:18 pm
andyt andyt:
Most anti-abortion arguments I've seen are about the killing of an unborn human. I actually find that hard to argue with - an 8 month old foetus certainly seems human to me, and is viable outside the womb.
Abortion means to terminate the pregnancy and doesn't necessarily entail killing the fetus. If a woman decides she no longer wants to be pregnant at 8 months, she can elect to remove the fetus from her body and have it brought to term/independence in an incubator where it is then placed for adoption.
$1:
We're not progressive, we're just to chicken to revisit the debate. When do you see that killing a child becomes wrong? Our laws say it's murder as soon as it has completely popped out, but before the cord is cut. So partial birth abortions are not prohibited at the moment. Are you OK with that? 8 month abortions just because the woman decides it's her body and she wants to get rid of the foetus? To me that is too extreme, I think we should find some compromise position.
Are we also too chicken to revisit the slavery debate? Are we just too chicken to revisit residential schools? Are we too chicken to start some 21st century Jim Crow laws? Are we too wimpy to become a theocracy?
Or are we progressive, enlightened and without stupidity?
Brenda @ Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:23 pm
I agree with you Andy. I am all for choice, but there still should be limits. I have no problem that women can make the choice early in the pregnancy that they want to abort for whatever reason. But I don't think it is ok to abort a baby that could survive outside the womb (whats that, 22 weeks nowadays?)
When you are not capable of raising a child, you KNOW that the moment you find out you are pregnant. There are morning after pills, and I think early term abortions should be the only legal choice-abortions. Medical necessity is another story.
andyt @ Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:31 pm
andyt andyt:
Most anti-abortion arguments I've seen are about the killing of an unborn human. I actually find that hard to argue with - an 8 month old foetus certainly seems human to me, and is viable outside the womb.
Dayseed Dayseed:
Abortion means to terminate the pregnancy and doesn't necessarily entail killing the fetus. If a woman decides she no longer wants to be pregnant at 8 months, she can elect to remove the fetus from her body and have it brought to term/independence in an incubator where it is then placed for adoption.
We have not laws to enforce that. I'm sure a late term partial birth abortion is much less fuss for the woman, and it's her body after all.andyt andyt:
We're not progressive, we're just to chicken to revisit the debate. When do you see that killing a child becomes wrong? Our laws say it's murder as soon as it has completely popped out, but before the cord is cut. So partial birth abortions are not prohibited at the moment. Are you OK with that? 8 month abortions just because the woman decides it's her body and she wants to get rid of the foetus? To me that is too extreme, I think we should find some compromise position.
Dayseed Dayseed:
Are we also too chicken to revisit the slavery debate? Are we just too chicken to revisit residential schools? Are we too chicken to start some 21st century Jim Crow laws? Are we too wimpy to become a theocracy?
Or are we progressive, enlightened and without stupidity?
Or are we progressive, enlightened and without stupidity?
You see those as equivalent, do you?
andyt @ Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:32 pm
Brenda Brenda:
I agree with you Andy. I am all for choice, but there still should be limits. I have no problem that women can make the choice early in the pregnancy that they want to abort for whatever reason. But I don't think it is ok to abort a baby that could survive outside the womb (whats that, 22 weeks nowadays?)
When you are not capable of raising a child, you KNOW that the moment you find out you are pregnant. There are morning after pills, and I think early term abortions should be the only legal choice-abortions. Medical necessity is another story.
When you are not capable of raising a child, you KNOW that the moment you find out you are pregnant. There are morning after pills, and I think early term abortions should be the only legal choice-abortions. Medical necessity is another story.
I win - a woman agrees with me. You realize what you are advocating is equivalent to promoting slavery, don't you Brenda?
Brenda @ Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:54 pm
andyt andyt:
Brenda Brenda:
I agree with you Andy. I am all for choice, but there still should be limits. I have no problem that women can make the choice early in the pregnancy that they want to abort for whatever reason. But I don't think it is ok to abort a baby that could survive outside the womb (whats that, 22 weeks nowadays?)
When you are not capable of raising a child, you KNOW that the moment you find out you are pregnant. There are morning after pills, and I think early term abortions should be the only legal choice-abortions. Medical necessity is another story.
When you are not capable of raising a child, you KNOW that the moment you find out you are pregnant. There are morning after pills, and I think early term abortions should be the only legal choice-abortions. Medical necessity is another story.
I win - a woman agrees with me. You realize what you are advocating is equivalent to promoting slavery, don't you Brenda?
Uhhhmmmm.... I do not see the connection at all, but whatever you say
andyt @ Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:57 pm
Just taking a dig at Dayseed. To me they're not equivalent either.
Dayseed @ Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:53 pm
andyt andyt:
Just taking a dig at Dayseed. To me they're not equivalent either.
Don't bother taking digs. When you have questions posed to you that you've failed to answer, you should probably focus on those first.
OnTheIce @ Mon Jan 02, 2012 3:43 pm
Dayseed Dayseed:
andyt andyt:
Just taking a dig at Dayseed. To me they're not equivalent either.
Don't bother taking digs. When you have questions posed to you that you've failed to answer, you should probably focus on those first.
Getting a response from andy is unlikely. He's just trolling in anonymity pushing his give-people-everything agenda.
andyt @ Mon Jan 02, 2012 3:53 pm
Dayseed Dayseed:
andyt andyt:
Just taking a dig at Dayseed. To me they're not equivalent either.
Don't bother taking digs. When you have questions posed to you that you've failed to answer, you should probably focus on those first.
How failed to answer? I made fun of your specious argument that being for some form of regulation of abortion is equivalent to advocating for slavery. What else can I say?
Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next