[grainfedprairieboy]

IceOwl IceOwl:

grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:

How dare any of you even debate abortion!! Why can’t you people realize that this issue has been decided by the Canadian intelligentsia and the debate is over. Canada leads the way in being the only country in the world to have no law governing abortion

If we have no law, doesn't that mean the debate continues? In fact, we do have a law, as you stated later on, based on a case called Morgentaler v. the Queen. The problem is that the law is just a little bit unclear.. and so the debate continues!

I was being facetious while at the same time weakly attempting to illustrate a point. Doesn’t work out quite the way you hoped when viewed sober.

[Dimcl]

MrMagicMan MrMagicMan:

Dimcl Dimcl:

MrMagicMan MrMagicMan:

Abortion is murder.

Move to South Dakota.

The ability to think is generally agreed to be what makes us human ie. different than the other animals on this planet. Science has shown that a human foetus does not have the neuron connections to allow it to think until the 24th to 26th week and that brain wave patterns that adult humans have do not show up until the 30th week. Accordingly, what makes them human and, therefore, capable of being "murdered" is not applicable until at least 6 months into the pregnancy. Ergo, first trimester abortions are not murder but the removal of an unwanted entity that is not yet human.

And here I thought the genetic code present from conception is what made us human...

A chimpanzee shares 99.6% of our genes yet it is far from what we deem "human" - the other .04% is what gives us our neural connections in the third trimester.

[Patrick_Ross]

fatbasturd fatbasturd:

Let me put a question to you.Which is the greater immorality,to take a life...or to bring one into the world you didn,t want.

I'm not really sure if I can answer that question. Thus a big part of the dilemma.

I feel that when considering this in terms of human potential -- aborting a life, even one of a child that isn't wanted, seems like a tremendous waste of that potential.

Then again, I can't help but see same value in the "don't want to risk not loving my child" argument.

It's frustrating.

Hyperiontheevil Hyperiontheevil:

Abortion itself has of course been around for cnturies in one form or another. Mostly though during that time it was seen as something not to have a public face put on it. Society i believe was more comfortable with women disappearing for a few days for no descernible reason and they come back to thier lives as if nothing had happened.

The one thing I think I cannot get past is the choice itself. When making a decision regarding abortion, I think a person is literally choosing the kind of person they want to be.
Now, who is to say they are choosing better or worse?
I can think of situations wherein a person can choose to have the abortion, and making the decision for what they feel are the right reasons. They feel they are making the best decision for everyone involved. Likewise with deciding against the abortion. I could see a mother deciding to have the child at her own peril, and be making the right decision -- or, perhaps, the wrong decision.

Hyperiontheevil Hyperiontheevil:

When women were given the right to choose it brought out the lobbyists for both sides nd to this day there is an ongoing battle about abortion (more in the US than here though). Which of course means its higlighted continuously. The only thing i believe that will inevitably reduce the level of hyperbole on both sides is time, and lots of it

All the flexibility doesn't change the fact that it is in fact a decision with implications for morality, which certainly plays to the strenghts of pro-life activists, and the religious right. Then again, restricting people's freedom to choose is also wrong -- this plays to the strengths of the pro-choice movement and feminists.

Blue Nose Blue Nose:

Right; taking another human life will always be an extremely complex and varying issue. To say anything involving life can be absolutely deemed right or wrong is hasty, and each situation must be carefully assessed (and reassessed continually), in terms of what would be best.

I feel the same. It's the matter of how one decides what decision is best that I find to be the most troublesome.
...No, troublesome isn't the right word. "Difficult to postulate" would be better words.

Dimcl Dimcl:

How can a woman go through 9 months of pregnancy, God knows how many hours of labour, seeing or holding the newborn, even briefly, and then just give it away? This is an easy solution if the birth parents have no emotions - otherwise it would be Hell. It's not like buying your kid a cute bunny rabbit for Easter and then giving it away a month later because it makes a mess on the carpet and is getting expensive to feed. No matter what decision a woman makes, it'll cause terrible turmoil at some stage in her life but expecting her to go through all that and then just hand it over to strangers??? Ugh!!

Here's a good case for you to consider.
I know this writer personally. He's an obnoxious, arrogant, self-centered little weasel who I can't stand, but I think he makes his point on this very clear:

http://www.gateway.ualberta.ca/view.php?aid=3719

IceOwl IceOwl:

I imagine that has more to do with the kind of flame wars that abortion debates cause than anything to do with censorship, but what do I know.

Actually, the moderators' exact words were "that's enough of Patrick Ross' anti-choice views", right as she banned me. This was after I had offered advice to someone who sent Bill Graham a very nasty e-mail demanding that Liberal MP who just introduced abortion legislation be punished for doing so.

...Anti choice . Can I be anti-freedom, too? Perhaps an islamofascist?

Ice Owl Ice Owl:

It can't be. Morals are what make up our laws. If you believe abortion is wrong because it's killing an unborn child, that's a moral belief. If you believe that it's wrong for the state to take away the choice for a woman to decide what happens to her body should she become pregnant, that is also a moral belief.

I think where you're coming from is probably more of a "Jesus = morals" world. I'm not accusing you of believing that specifically, but more that such a paradigm (oh gawd, it hurts to use that word) has infected your idea of what morals are.

God, I hope Jesus has infected my morality. He taught us not to judge people, to help our friends and neighbours (love and treat everyone as a brother), and to "turn the other cheek".
I know it hasn't but actually, I'd love to live up to that standard. I know I'm not, because if I were, I wouldn't worry about this sort of stuff so much.

grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:

The dictionary defines Moral as: Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character.

Those who object to abortion generally do so because they do feel it to be a moral issue. Those in favour are not necessarily immoral but they tend to view it as ideological or political and anathematic to a secular society.

So I believe that morality is only influential to one side of the debate.

No, I simply cannot agree with that. While the most extreme pro-choice activists certainy do shy away from the debate over morality, labelling them as amoral is far too simple, and gives them far too little respect.

[MissT]

I also think that both pro-choice and anti-choice sides of the debate do use their own code of morals to determine their views. The difference is that both sides are prioritising different things to determine their moral standpoint.

Anti-abortionists believe that the existance of life should be valued above all else, and to take away this life would be an immoral act.

Those in favour of abortion come to their moral viewpoint in a more subtle and indirect way. Personally, I think that it is the quality of the life is more important than the existance of the life itself. So if the birth of a child is going to ruin a mother's life (which for some it can literally feel like that) and bring a child into a world where it is unwanted, unloved, resented, and possibly not well fed or taken care of, then I might believe that it is better not to subject mother and child to that misery. I don't believe that all children shoudl be born if their lives are going to be miserable.

Life is long, difficult, and usually shitty. It's hard enough for most of us as it is. Personally, if the odds were stacked against me even more I'm not sure I'd want to bother with being born.

I hope no one finds this offensive if I compare these thoughts with my beliefs on vegetarianism. Well, actually, I'm not really a vegetarian. I eat meat a few times a year, if its game or free range. TO me it's important that the animal had a decent standard of living before it died. For me, it's the life that's more important than the death. I realise that I feel the same about human life. I believe it would be better for there to be less of us on this planet, but happier, than more and miserable.

Hence I do use morals when coming to my conclusion, but I put a higher value on different things.

[HyperionTheEvil]

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

I'm not really sure if I can answer that question. Thus a big part of the dilemma.

I feel that when considering this in terms of human potential -- aborting a life, even one of a child that isn't wanted, seems like a tremendous waste of that potential.

Then again, I can't help but see same value in the "don't want to risk not loving my child" argument.

It's frustrating.

As i think many would agree here, abortion itself is not something that we would choose as the preferred method of contraception. The reasons for aortion in of themselves ithink are not the issue. For Anti-Abortionists the life of the child is paramount, for Pro-Abortionists the right to choose is. The fundamental question then becomes does the life of a fetus outweigh the ability of the woman to do with her own body what she wishes?

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

The one thing I think I cannot get past is the choice itself. When making a decision regarding abortion, I think a person is literally choosing the kind of person they want to be.
Now, who is to say they are choosing better or worse?
I can think of situations wherein a person can choose to have the abortion, and making the decision for what they feel are the right reasons. They feel they are making the best decision for everyone involved. Likewise with deciding against the abortion. I could see a mother deciding to have the child at her own peril, and be making the right decision -- or, perhaps, the wrong decision.

The problem is choice. Does a woman make a change for herself when she decides to have an abortion?. Yes i believe so, From what ive been told having an abortion is not a easy choice to make and the women facig it have a great deal of soul searching before them make the choice to have an abortion or not. It comes down to the personality of the woman involved and women will make thier own choices based upon thier own judgment.

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

All the flexibility doesn't change the fact that it is in fact a decision with implications for morality, which certainly plays to the strenghts of pro-life activists, and the religious right. Then again, restricting people's freedom to choose is also wrong -- this plays to the strengths of the pro-choice movement and feminists.

This is the problem. But as i said i believe it will take a long time for people to become accustomed to the aspect that abortion is a right. As you very well expressed morality cuts both ways.

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

I feel the same. It's the matter of how one decides what decision is best that I find to be the most troublesome.
...No, troublesome isn't the right word. "Difficult to postulate" would be better words.

Its probably more difficult for men than it is women, but i do share your thoughts. My own judgement on the issue is that ultimately it comes to the the single person involved in the situation - the woman. As obviously men do not get pregnant i believe that it is impossible for men to truly understand the varying emotions that women go through when they find out they are pregnant, and if they are considering an abortion.

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

God, I hope Jesus has infected my morality. He taught us not to judge people, to help our friends and neighbours (love and treat everyone as a brother), and to "turn the other cheek".
I know it hasn't but actually, I'd love to live up to that standard. I know I'm not, because if I were, I wouldn't worry about this sort of stuff so much.

Religion is obviouly a source of great comfort to some people, but i dont believe that religion - any religion has the inheent right to impose thier set of beliefs upon people who do not share them. Of course those who have strong religious views sometimes feel it neccesary to take a more activists role in certain issues, on the opposite side of this particular debate. Women and especially feminists have taken the other view that religion is a personal choice and religious law should not become laws of the State

[PluggyRug]

This thread is superfluous.

If you do not want children....



[align=center]Put a rubber on it[/align]

[BartSimpson]

Wada Wada:

My thought is, it's none of my business unless I'm the daddy and even then it's up to the mom to be more than it's mine.

So if you, as the father, officially state that you want the mother to have an abortion then you should not have to pay child support if she has it anyway, right?

[Wada]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Wada Wada:

My thought is, it's none of my business unless I'm the daddy and even then it's up to the mom to be more than it's mine.

So if you, as the father, officially state that you want the mother to have an abortion then you should not have to pay child support if she has it anyway, right?

If I'm the father I would not state anything and especially to you or yours. What goes on between moi and my impregnated lady are not yours or anyones business. And if she decides to have the child then I would live up to my responsibility as the da and if that is restricted to child support, so be it.

[SJ-24]

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

Since being banned from the rabble.ca forum over the issue (I love it when faux-progressives demonstrate their hypocrisy), I've been wrestling with the issue of abortion.

The question I've been wrestling with is not my stance over it, but rather, how to view other people's stances. I've been trying to determine whether or not morality can be removed from the issue.

Are the moral implications of abortion absolute? I can't bring it upon myself to declare that abortion is some kind of "evil social ill". I certainly don't agree with it, and feel there are a multitude of better choices, but I can't entirely divest it of morality. I simply cannot think of any way in which abortion is not a moral choice, regardless of whether it is right or wrong.

Any thoughts?

Plenty.

All you swinging dicks out there that think for 2 seconds you even have the right to speak on this topic are full of shit. May I suggest you pass a 6 kg water mellon out of your asshole and see if its something that you should be forced to endure. As a male you will never have to consider abortion because you came with a maintenance free option on the gender. A woman on the other hand has no such luck. In most cases the guy wimps out and high tails it out of the relationship leaving the woman to make a choice. One which will leave her suffering no matter what happens. Granted some woman may simply have an abortion and be back at fucking within a few weeks and completely un emotional about her decision, but in most of the cases that is not the situation. Most of these women suffer for years from the after thought of what they have done.

I will always support the right for woman to make a choice based on their reasons, not the reasons of a church group or nutbar who will never have to decide for themselves. Anyone who tries to tell a woman what is right or wrong is only playing the part of God. I think if one does exist (GOD), he will have those woman who have abortions explain themselves one day.

[Robair]

SJ-24 SJ-24:

Anyone who tries to tell a woman what is right or wrong is only playing the part of God.

Couldn't you say the same about anyone who preforms an abortion? Or even any woman who elects to have one? Isn't that playing God with the whole discarding of life thing?

SJ-24 SJ-24:

I think if one does exist (GOD), he will have those woman who have abortions explain themselves one day.

No doubt.

[Thematic-Device]

MrMagicMan MrMagicMan:

And here I thought the genetic code present from conception is what made us human...

Genetic code means squat. You can have all the human DNA you want, it is not a sufficient condition to be considered a legal entity.

[Patrick_Ross]

MissT MissT:

I also think that both pro-choice and anti-choice sides of the debate do use their own code of morals to determine their views. The difference is that both sides are prioritising different things to determine their moral standpoint.

But who is to say which side's priorities are any better than the other's? I suppose this particular problem could be solved by both sides at least agreeing to respect the views of the other side.
But, judging from my recent experience, that doesn't seem terribily likely to happen.

MissT MissT:

Anti-abortionists believe that the existance of life should be valued above all else, and to take away this life would be an immoral act.

Those in favour of abortion come to their moral viewpoint in a more subtle and indirect way. Personally, I think that it is the quality of the life is more important than the existance of the life itself. So if the birth of a child is going to ruin a mother's life (which for some it can literally feel like that) and bring a child into a world where it is unwanted, unloved, resented, and possibly not well fed or taken care of, then I might believe that it is better not to subject mother and child to that misery. I don't believe that all children should be born if their lives are going to be miserable.

Life is long, difficult, and usually shitty. It's hard enough for most of us as it is. Personally, if the odds were stacked against me even more I'm not sure I'd want to bother with being born.

But the child itself is offered no choice in the decision that will ultimately affect it the most. Perhaps that's what bothers me about this particular line of reasoning.

MissT MissT:

I hope no one finds this offensive if I compare these thoughts with my beliefs on vegetarianism. Well, actually, I'm not really a vegetarian. I eat meat a few times a year, if its game or free range. TO me it's important that the animal had a decent standard of living before it died. For me, it's the life that's more important than the death. I realise that I feel the same about human life. I believe it would be better for there to be less of us on this planet, but happier, than more and miserable.

Hence I do use morals when coming to my conclusion, but I put a higher value on different things.

I think that makes a certain degree of sense. Ultimately, what determines whether the decision is morally "good", or morally "wrong" is whether or not the decision is made selfishly or not.

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

As i think many would agree here, abortion itself is not something that we would choose as the preferred method of contraception. The reasons for aortion in of themselves ithink are not the issue. For Anti-Abortionists the life of the child is paramount, for Pro-Abortionists the right to choose is. The fundamental question then becomes does the life of a fetus outweigh the ability of the woman to do with her own body what she wishes?

Given that an unborn child is dependent upon its mother's body in order to sustain life, I'd suspect that whether or not a pregnant woman's body can be considered exclusively hers is entirely debatable.
Regardless, the use of abortion strictly as retro-active birth control seems extremely selfish to me.

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

The problem is choice. Does a woman make a change for herself when she decides to have an abortion?. Yes i believe so, From what ive been told having an abortion is not a easy choice to make and the women facig it have a great deal of soul searching before them make the choice to have an abortion or not. It comes down to the personality of the woman involved and women will make thier own choices based upon thier own judgment.

It can't be an easy decision to make -- not for anyone of any moral value, at least.

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

Its probably more difficult for men than it is women, but i do share your thoughts. My own judgement on the issue is that ultimately it comes to the the single person involved in the situation - the woman. As obviously men do not get pregnant i believe that it is impossible for men to truly understand the varying emotions that women go through when they find out they are pregnant, and if they are considering an abortion.

I certainly admit that, being a man, my view on abortion, by necessity, is somewhat limited. Which makes the issue more difficult to grapple with. It would probably be easy to embrace a strictly pro-life (not anti-choice) point-of-view, but I just don't find that to be in my character.
In a sense, I am pro-life, but also very much pro-choice. I just feel that choosing life is a much better choice.
But I'm not really fit to judge anyone who would choose otherwise.

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

Religion is obviouly a source of great comfort to some people, but i dont believe that religion - any religion has the inheent right to impose thier set of beliefs upon people who do not share them. Of course those who have strong religious views sometimes feel it neccesary to take a more activists role in certain issues, on the opposite side of this particular debate. Women and especially feminists have taken the other view that religion is a personal choice and religious law should not become laws of the State/

I don't find religion all that comforting, actually -- I find that embracing religion places extra responsibilities upon me.
For example, in embracing Christ, I must choose to do what I can to live up to his example -- unless I take that whole "Christ was the son of god" dogma as an excuse not to.

IceOwl IceOwl:

That wasn't what I was getting at. It's one thing to know the morals Jesus taught, it's another to believe that one can only have morals if one believes in Jesus, regardless of how ignorant one is of anything he taught or how little one follows through with those morals.

Fair enough.
But Buddhism teaches us some pretty good moral lessons, too.

IceOwl IceOwl:

Now is always a good time to start.

If only it were that easy.

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

If you do not want children....

Put a rubber on it

At least according to the Kevin Federlines of the world, it apparently isn't that easy.

SJ-24 SJ-24:

All you swinging dicks out there that think for 2 seconds you even have the right to speak on this topic are full of shit. May I suggest you pass a 6 kg water mellon out of your asshole and see if its something that you should be forced to endure. As a male you will never have to consider abortion because you came with a maintenance free option on the gender. A woman on the other hand has no such luck. In most cases the guy wimps out and high tails it out of the relationship leaving the woman to make a choice. One which will leave her suffering no matter what happens. Granted some woman may simply have an abortion and be back at fucking within a few weeks and completely un emotional about her decision, but in most of the cases that is not the situation. Most of these women suffer for years from the after thought of what they have done.

I will always support the right for woman to make a choice based on their reasons, not the reasons of a church group or nutbar who will never have to decide for themselves. Anyone who tries to tell a woman what is right or wrong is only playing the part of God. I think if one does exist (GOD), he will have those woman who have abortions explain themselves one day.

This thread isn't about whether or not abortion is right or wrong, per se. It's about whether or not morality can be entirely removed from the decision of abortion.
While the poll suggests otherwise, the consensus amongst those actually participating thread seems to be that it can't. So, basically, we are discussing what makes a "good" moral choice (either in favor of or against an abortion).
But we seem to be mostly in agreement that men simply cannot have the same perspective on abortion as women have. On this particular issue, perhaps you could even go so far as to say we have a "second-class" perspective.

Robair Robair:

Couldn't you say the same about anyone who preforms an abortion? Or even any woman who elects to have one? Isn't that playing God with the whole discarding of life thing?

People who administer abortions are trained medical professionals. They take a hippocratic oath. Now, some would likely argue that they violate this oath by performing an abortion. Personally, I would argue that they would be violating the dotor-patient relationship by simply refusing to perform one under any circumstances -- particularly if it were medically necessary to save the mother's life.

[Newfy]

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

Since being banned from the rabble.ca forum over the issue (I love it when faux-progressives demonstrate their hypocrisy), I've been wrestling with the issue of abortion.

The question I've been wrestling with is not my stance over it, but rather, how to view other people's stances. I've been trying to determine whether or not morality can be removed from the issue.

Are the moral implications of abortion absolute? I can't bring it upon myself to declare that abortion is some kind of "evil social ill". I certainly don't agree with it, and feel there are a multitude of better choices, but I can't entirely divest it of morality. I simply cannot think of any way in which abortion is not a moral choice, regardless of whether it is right or wrong.

Any thoughts?

All I have to say is I don't agree with abortion for one simple reason. As an adopted child I am greatful for the fact that my birth mother decided to have me and give me away to two people that would care for me as their own, rather than be aborted and not exist at all. The only time i think it may be acceptable is when rape is involved.