Abortion rights are justified. Here's why.

It's not my choice, nor yours.

23 week abortion is legal.

 

No, I am not anti-choice. I believe the pregnant woman is the only one to make a choice. I don't mind the 23 week limit for the reasons I stated. I would be quite happy if there were no restrictions at all....but I don't think it makes any difference.

Why would Canada's health care providers be required to "report" any legal medical procedure?

 

Cut the Gosnell crap...he murdered babies ...he broke the law ....he was a murderer....not all doctors are murderers because one was . Do you think if an auto mechanic commits murder all auto mechanics are murderers? That would be stupid.

Laws get broken but we don't charge or jail people on what they MIGHT do or do what YOU don't approve of.

And I've told you before women don't need your Ok on whether their reasons are noble or not....they don't care about your opinion whatsoever...

 

You said earlier you believed that "after 23 weeks abortion should be allowed only for medical reasons." So which is it? In the eyes of those who actively campaign for completely unrestricted abortion you'd be seen as at least an anti-choice sympathizer, just for being "okay" with it.

How else would there be any accurate statistics on it? Where are you getting your information that "women don't have late term abortions ....(unless for medical reasons)" in Canada?

 

"
Canada: During the year 2009, 29% of induced abortions were performed before 8 weeks, 41% at 9 to 12 weeks, 7% at 13 to 16 weeks and 2% over 21 weeks.
England and Wales: In 2005, 9% of abortions occurred between 13 and 19 weeks, while 1% occurred at or over 20 weeks.
New Zealand: In 2003, 2.03% of induced abortions were done between weeks 16 and 19, and 0.56% were done over 20 weeks.
Norway: In 2005, 2.28% of induced abortions were performed between 13 and 16 weeks, 1.24% of abortions between 17 and 20 weeks, and 0.20% over 21 weeks.Between February 15, 2010 and December 1, 2011, a total number of ten abortions were performed between 22 to 24 weeks. These have been declared illegal by The Norwegian Directorate of Health.
Scotland: In 2005, 6.1% of abortions were done between 14 and 17 weeks, while 1.6% were performed over 18 weeks.
Sweden: In 2005, 5.6% of abortions were carried out between 12 and 17 weeks, and 0.8% at or greater than 18 weeks.
United States: In 2003, from data collected in those areas that sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found that 6.2% of abortions were conducted between 13 and 15 weeks, 4.2% between 16 and 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks.
Because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's annual study on abortion statistics does not calculate the exact gestational age for abortions performed past the 20th week, there are no precise data for the number of abortions performed after viability.
In 1997, the Guttmacher Institute estimated the number of abortions in the U.S. past 24 weeks to be 0.08%, or approximately 1,032 per year."


Hope that helps.

 

Some women don't even know they're pregnant until late term (even until they've carried a child to term and go into labor). Some women have life changing circumstances which make them decide they don't want to be a parent anymore. And yes, some women have mental issues. The question is whether any of these circumstances justify killing a fetus that's already viable, as opposed to inducing early labor and attempting to save it.

This completely contradicts your earlier statement that "after 23 weeks abortion should be allowed only for medical reasons." Did you misstate your view, or did it change in the past 24 hours?

I was responding to your claim that "women don't have late term abortions" for non-medical reasons. They clearly do, but most of those willing to perform them even where they're legal probably wouldn't be very forthcoming or willing to share data about them, even if only for the fact the political climate might change in the future.

 

That is pure rubbish

 

I believe it is not the place of the government to make laws about medical decisions .. however as it is plain to see that many people do not want to see elective abortion after a certain time (despite having no evidence to support they actually happen) a compromise is required, Roe gives that compromise. The problem is that pro-lifers will never be satisfied, just look at the bastardization by pro-lifers of the unborn victims of violence act to see that no matter how many inches are conceded they want the whole mile and that is why I will argue the complete opposite of what the crave using their own argument of there being a person from conception deserving of the protections of that status against them .. for with those protections also come restrictions.

 

It's been a while since I've been on this site, but I always thought your posts came across more intelligent than this in the past. What your saying here is rather than having your own opinions and beliefs, you just react reflexively to whatever you perceive "the other side" is saying and take the opposite view. If you were truly confident in your beliefs you wouldn't care that people you disagree with on policy happen to share some of them. In fact, the most sensible course of action would be to "reclaim" those beliefs and point out why they don't necessarily justify policies that some people support.

For example, you know I've argued even if a human is considered a person from conception, it doesn't justify legally restricting most abortions as many pro-lifers would like to. I'm not scared the extremists on the anti-abortion side will somehow be empowered by acknowledging or conceding that possibility. I don't see why pro-choicers should be worried about that, at least not mainstream pro-choicers...

 

What is? More than one person here has already said they wanna see all laws restricting late term abortions done away with. I see people argue this on other forums (and IRL) all the time.

 

I have my own opinions and beliefs, which are that abortion should not be a government issue, there should be no restrictions to abortion .. however I also understand the reality that compromises are required, the current restrictions are that compromise. I argue from the direct opposite of what those pro-lifers want for numerous reasons, one of them is as posted, another is that I do believe that abortion should not be a government issue (as I stated in my comment you replied to)

and as you know I do exactly the same thing, pro-lifers do not scare me in the slightest, for one, I have found most of them of ignorant of their own laws and of the consequences of what they desire.

 

For the majority of pro-choicers the current legislation is what they want, people like me who want no restrictions are a minority amongst the pro-choice groups, so I find your "many" to be rubbish .. that is not meant as an insult to you BTW, merely that in my experience there are not that many pro-choicers who actually want all abortion restrictions removed.

 

You can still be in a minority and be one of "many." I've found many people will argue against restrictions on elective late-term abortions, even post-viability, when pressed on the issue, although not all of them are as honest as you are (even with themselves) about their stance on the issue. And very rarely will I ever see other people who identify as "pro-choice" take issue with them, which IMO is just as hypocritical as when "pro-lifers" refuse to call out the extreme views on their side.

 

I can only speak from over ten years of debating this subject and in that time I have met very few who wish to remove all restrictions and have had many disagree with me - I will say that in recent times there has been an increase in those who support zero restrictions, but they are still a very small minority. I think that the realization that even with no restrictions there is not going to be queues of 8 month pregnant women outside of clinics helps, and the fact that countries like Canada who have no restrictions actually have a lower late-term abortion rate than the US who do have restrictions. The other factor that pro-lifers seem to over look is that even with no restrictions a doctor cannot be forced into performing a late-term elective abortion and as it is in Canada I suspect most, if not all, doctors would refuse to do them in the US.

I am more than prepared to argue my position against pro-lifers and pro-choicers should they wish to do so .. strange thing is very few have actually presented a logically argument to dispute it.

 

Humans shouldn't have to be forced to donate blood to save a life. They should just do it because they aren't selfish narcissists. Too many people in this world are in it for themselves.

 

Yet you feel it's fine for a woman to be forced to not only donate her blood but her whole body to save a "life". People who don't donate blood are selfish and narcisstic? Wow, you sure see life in black and white ...

Yes, everybody is for themselves...especially people who want abortion banned because THEY don't approve.

 

How do you feel about partial birth abortion in the second or third trimester?

 

(Bolding above, mine)

Where are these many people who argue against late term restrictions?

How do you know they aren't being honest with themselves? Do you read minds?


Do you really think that if there are no abortion restrictions that women will wait through 8 months of pregnancy just to have an abortion?

I don't. So I don't care if there are no restrictions, I prefer that because the government (or any self righteous misogynist) has no business in making medical decisions.

 

I agree the point should be to make decisions by informed consent, by free will, which cannot be manipulated
by pressure or duress or it isn't that person's natural free will if they were acting under oppression by others.

The problem is the abortion is also pressured, and too often the sex that led to the pregnancy.

All these issues and points of compromising free will would have to be addressed to prevent oppression at any point.
So the issue of free choice isn't just at the very end when it's the woman carrying or raising the child.

The law only focuses on regulations when it's already "all on the women," but too often oppression or coercion already occurred. So it is unfair to try to police it at that point where it keeps affecting the women but not the men who were also part of this equation.

The solutions will come from addressing the conflicts IN ADVANCE, not after pregnancy has occurred or other medical conditions after the fact.

People are politically projecting all the other issues onto the point where the law can regulate and intervene.
But that's not where free choice starts.

This is like those lawsuits where the burglar sues for excess force and demands that rights were violated,
but those were already compromised by breaking into someone's house to commit theft.

In this case, if you really want to see free choice, it would have to start much sooner than
* waiting until an unwanted pregnancy and then trying to argue over responsibility. Where's the man in that situation?
or with health care
* waiting until after you find out how much damage was caused by smoking tobacco or pot.
Where was the responsibility for decisions that were already risky?

We keep waiting until after the fact to start arguing what should be regulated or not.

If you don't agree on the risks or responsibilities, then separate health care systems, benefits and funding
and only support programs and policies that share the same standards you DO agree on.

And quit trying to establish or impose one standard for all people if we don't all agree.
If people don't believe in paying for abortion, or death penalty, or medical care for pot smokers,
then S E P A R A T E.
If people only want to pay for health care if someone has undergone spiritual healing to remove all causes
and diseases and conditions that could possible cost more money, then set up a program for people who
agree to pay costs under those conditions. And leave others out of it who don't share those conditions.

medical, health and life decisions get personal. People have different beliefs about natural healing,
responsibility, what is an acceptable threshold, etc. so they aren't going to agree to fund the same things.

SEPARATE

just like religions don't agree on communion, weddings, funeral practices, they all do their own.
let people choose. Let people have INFORMED choice and not skew their decisions with
commercialized access to pot or drugs for monied interests
instead of spiritual healing and natural cures that are free, more effective and save lives and resources.

If we allow free choice, all the other issues can be addressed.
If we keep fighting over if federal govt has authority, or state or people,
we'll never get to the real issues. let people go with the authority THEY believe in and quit imposing others.
separate and organize in networks and all groups and avenues should be included in that mix.

Not either or but "all the above" should be offered as options so people have a free and fully informed choice.

 

You do seem to have an obsession with something that rarely happens and never happens for elective reasons, also even if there were no restrictions a doctor cannot be forced to perform such a procedure ergo it would be like Canada .. tell me does Canada have women electing to abort in the later stages of pregnancy?

Partial birth abortion is banned in the US .. that ban didn't change a thing, all doctors did was to ensure that the fetus was dead prior to extraction.

 

I agree with you, and it would be great if we could all make our own choices, and those choices didn't affect other people. But unfortunately certain choices DO affect other people, this is why we need law.

I think coercion into both sex and abortion are a big issue. Not only direct coercion, but coercion through social stigma, media influence, peer influence and lack of support.

- - - Updated - - -

Women in Canada who want an elective abortion after 20 weeks often travel to the USA.

 

Yes, and although it has nothing to do with late term abortions here's the reason. (Which you don't want to acknowledge)









"""New Brunswick, the Canadian province that borders Maine to the east, recently closed its only private abortion clinic. The Morgentaler Clinic in Fredericton was forced to shut down in July because of funding problems.

Abortions are legal in Canada and, according to the New Brunswick Medical Services Payment Act, paid for by the state, in certain circumstances. Two physicians have to say the abortion is medically necessary, and it has to be performed by one of two approved hospitals.

Many women face problems finding a supportive family doctor — let alone two — for the time-sensitive procedure, so many abortions in New Brunswick happened at The Morgentaler Clinic. Physicians there performed about 600 abortions a year, or 60 percent of all pregnancy terminations in the province.

Now that the clinic has closed, some women are going across the border. “We have seen a significant increase in the number of women from New Brunswick in our clinics," says Ruth Lockhart, the co-founder of the Mabel Wadsworth Women's Health Center in Bangor, Maine. "We only do abortions once a week, but at our last clinic, half of the clients were from New Brunswick,”

But women who come the US for abortions face obstacles as well. For one, they need a valid passport. And Rachel Cave, a reporter from CBC New Brunswick who traveled to Maine to report on the story, points out that "you're looking at a 10-hour round trip, and [you're] probably not doing that in a day. So now you're looking at hotel costs."

So while Lockhart and other abortion providers who spoke to Cave say they're happy to fill the gap, they're also concerned: "So far, and we're new into this piece of it, it's the women with resources who are able to make it here. So my concern is always the women without resources who don't come, who aren't able to come," Lockhart says."""""





So nothing changed, women still get abortions....and wealthy women will never have a problem getting one.


I know you're afraid of me but can you show where there are women electing to have late term abortions?? No, I didn't think so....



NOW, since you LOVE to hijack threads I'll repost the TOPIC/OP:


"""I've gone through an evolution in my thinking on the issue. What seals the deal for me is the principle of human autonomy over one's own mind, body and life. It's articulated well by one of my favorite philosophers: man (meaning humans) is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others.

Pro lifers, consider this:
You think the unborn have a right to life, the same right that the born have. Ok, let's say I concede this. If that means that a woman can be forced to carry the unborn to term then it means any person may make use of any other person's body to sustain life. I can force you to donate an organ if I need one. Forget the right to your own body. I can strap you to a chair, hook you up to a device and extract from your body anything that I need to live.

What? You don't agree? Then why does the unborn have such a right? What's the difference? """"

 

Really, please provide you official data for that assertion.

There is an increase in women travelling to Maine for abortions as the only clinic in New Brunswick *that borders Maine to the east* has been closed due to funding issues, that does not equate to your assertion however.