Should Canadian tax payers be funding abortion?

[SirJosephPorter]

this is another subject, along with capital punishment,
that I am thankful will never be voted on, because as in
capital punishment, the vote would come from an emotional
thought process, and never think of anyone but themselves,
and how they view the situation, 'emotionally', but it is
a very complex situation, with much deeper meanings, but it
seems many people just can't get there.

Quite so, these are settled, dead issues in Canada. Courts have already ruled on abortion. While I don’t think they have ruled on death penalty, it is most probable that if it goes to the courts, they will rule that death penalty is against the Charter. I don’t think courts will take Canada on a course in conflict what most of the developed world thinks.

So we don’t have to worry about fighting these bruising, bitter battles all over again. In USA now, they will be discussing these issues for decades to come and fighting over it.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

A few but not a majority. It is an emotional issue, not a moral one. When emotions are involved, logic flies out the window.

Indeed. And that is why these issues are for the courts and the Parliament to decide, not for people to decide in a referendum, in a 50%+1 vote.

 

[JLM]

"Should Canadian tax payers be funding abortion?"

Yes, for any woman, for the first abortion. After all, mistakes DO happen.

There should be NO public funding for a second abortion. Or any abortion after that.

First of all Happy Easter to you Y.J. and many more. Secondly I think you have to take each one on it's own merits. Would you really deny funding for a second tubal pregnancy? Something else I think people should keep in mind is you can be against publicly funding the abortion without being against the abortion. There are exceptions to every rule, so of course there are a few abortions that I believe should be funded.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Have you ever seen anyone as evil looking as Morgantaler? :smile:

Yes this guy.
file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Owner/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.pnghttp://www.blogcdn.com/www.politicsdaily.com/media/2010/01/scott-roeder.jpg

He is Scott Roeder the murderer of Dr. George Tiller.

U.S. abortion killer jailed 50 years - World - Canoe.ca

 

[Colpy]

Yes this guy.
file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Owner/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.pnghttp://www.blogcdn.com/www.politicsdaily.com/media/2010/01/scott-roeder.jpg

He is Scott Roeder the murderer of Dr. George Tiller.

U.S. abortion killer jailed 50 years - World - Canoe.ca

"I don't like to think of Dr. Tiller as murdered, I like to think of him as terminated in the 203 trimester"

Ann Coulter

 

[JLM]

"I don't like to think of Dr. Tiller as murdered, I like to think of him as terminated in the 203 trimester"

Ann Coulter

I like the U.S. justice system, they don't screw around down there. He got what he deserved. He'll have to be careful in prison if he expects to enjoy his parole.

 

[Colpy]

I like the U.S. justice system, they don't screw around down there. He got what he deserved. He'll have to be careful in prison if he expects to enjoy his parole.

Despite my appreciation of Ms. Coulter's ability to turn the language around, the shooter had to go to jail.

51 years might be a little excessive.....but there is no doubt he would have done it again.........

 

[JLM]

Despite my appreciation of Ms. Coulter's ability to turn the language around, the shooter had to go to jail.

51 years might be a little excessive.....but there is no doubt he would have done it again.........

Yep, even the worst creeps in the world have to be protected against murder.

 

[Cliffy]

Yep, even the worst creeps in the world have to be protected against murder.

Too bad!:roll:

 

[bobnoorduyn]

I can't get over the fact that most people who are adamant about prohibiting abortion are men and have no business dictating what a woman can or can't do with her body. Men are just sperm donors and really have no right to tell a woman what to do with an unwanted pregnancy.

Well, that's not completely correct, I know plenty of men who are all for abortion, and plenty of women who are totally against it. But the fact that there is no law prohibiting abortion doesn't equate to the public having to bear the finacial burden of having to provide them, which I think was the crux of the title of the thread.

Men who favour publicly funded abortions may also feel let off the hook financially to pay for their own mistakes, remember, it takes two. But here in Canada we allow mistakes to be forgiven and blame everyone else but the parties involved. Irresponsible teens grow up to be irresponsible adults. If the boys and girls were held equally financially responsible some attitudes might just change a bit.

It just seems funny that when doctors are willing to refuse treatment to smokers and the obese because they claim it is thier own fault, and there is no outcry, but to even think to do so in abortion cases would lead to mass protest. And don't kid yourself, doctors are if not the largest single group of social engineers, they are the most powerful, and use socialized medical care as their leverage. The more the public demands government services the more intrusive government gets.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Morgantaler is widely respected, admired by a big section of Canadian population, and with good reason.

He is also reviled and villified by a big section of the Canadian population. He is a one trick pony, he saw a niche market and exploited it, is still exploiting it, and demanding that government pay for his services. I believe he is still fighting to have New Brunswick allow him to open up there, and pay him as well, of course.

 

[JLM]

He is also reviled and villified by a big section of the Canadian population. He is a one trick pony, he saw a niche market and exploited it, is still exploiting it, and demanding that government pay for his services. I believe he is still fighting to have New Brunswick allow him to open up there, and pay him as well, of course.

You got the picture Bob- on both posts. :smile:

 

[Praxius]

We've had universal health care long before abortion was legalized here in Canada. With the recent health care bill concerns in the US centered around tax payer funded abortion the question needs to be asked. Should there be tax payer funded abortion here in Canada?

Well my taxes pay for all sorts of screwy things, many of which I don't agree with.... but abortions are not one of my top concerns.

The Canadian law allows a mother to have an abortion in the last trimester, even the day before the baby is born. This certainly is not health care for the unborn child. The mother may have physical problems after the abortion. A lot have emotional scars that last for years. This is not health care. Even some fathers have emotional problems after the fact.

All subjective and speculative based on each situation. They exist, but not absolute for every circumstance.

The listed issues you mentioned above can apply just as equally for those who have the child as those who choose not to.

Statistics show that there were 100,763 abortions performed in Canada in 2004 with only 6% due to health problems and only 1% because of rape or incest (source). These numbers do not include any abortions performed in the Manitoba abortion clinic as it did not release data to Statistics Canada.

So over 94,000 (93%) of these abortions were performed for convenience. A form of contraception. This clearly is not health care. And it is putting pressure on our health care system.

While I don't agree with people having abortions as a means of birth control... birth control itself is covered in our health care, thus I don't see that as much of an argument either. These just sound more like personal objections towards abortion itself and seeking some means to somehow remove this choice for people simply because you don't like it.

Unborn babies deserve human rights in Canada too.

Sez you.... I beg to differ. Even if they were given human rights, they are trumped always by the host mother, whom is already protected by those same human rights towards what happens to her own body, regardless if she did it to herself on purpose or not.

Do you want to be amazed? Then watch this short video to see an unborn baby stretch, suck it's thumb, bounce, rub it's shoulder, scratch, open it's eyes, yawn, pout, stick it's tongue out and smile.

YouTube - 4D Ultrasound

Can't view youtube videos where I currently am, but physical movements and reactions which are based on one form or another of electrical stimuli from the brain, does not equate to proof of a consciousness, which imo qualifies one for human rights in the first place.

If a body doesn't move at all, be that conscious or not, then its muscles and motor skills diminish and begin to fail (Muscle Atrophy) which during fetal development, movement and muscle stimuli plays a very important role in growth..... which means every muscle will require movement in some fashion or another.

If you believe the time has come for our government to extend full legal protection to every human being from their biological beginnings to natural death then please sign this petition.
personhood_homepage

Petitions do nothing.... I made a petition against petitions one time and there's still petitions.

 

[Cliffy]

Can't view youtube videos where I currently am, but physical movements and reactions which are based on one form or another of electrical stimuli from the brain, does not equate to proof of a consciousness, which imo qualifies one for human rights in the first place.


Interesting. It has been shown that plants react to electrical stimuli and will even react to threats of harm. Are we going to give them human rights too?

 

[Praxius]

Interesting. It has been shown that plants react to electrical stimuli and will even react to threats of harm. Are we going to give them human rights too?

Probably not, but most will disqualify that argument simply because it's not a humanoid with the electrical stimuli.

In other words, the argument I continually see revolves around a fetus/zygote being of human genetics, thus regardless of any prof of consciousness, being of human genetics and having the potential of becoming a human being should qualify it for human rights protection.

Every sperm, every egg has the potential to be a human being.... and our hair, dead skin, a kidney or heart etc. are all made up of human genetics, but are not given human rights individually, because they have no individual consciousness and are not independent, living, breathing human beings.

There's a line between what is given human rights and what is not.... and as the law states, which I agree with, only a born human being, that takes it's first breath outside of the womb, discontented from its host mother, etc. should be issued human rights. Anything else only opens a big can of worms towards conflicting rights and legalities.

 

[#juan]

He is also reviled and villified by a big section of the Canadian population. He is a one trick pony, he saw a niche market and exploited it, is still exploiting it, and demanding that government pay for his services. I believe he is still fighting to have New Brunswick allow him to open up there, and pay him as well, of course.

I tend to agree with you Bob. A lot of people espouse the idea that women should have control of their own bodies. Fair enough. Who was in control when the baby was conceived? Abortions cost this country something like $80 million dollars without counting the emotional trauma that some women never get over. Should the two parties(it does take two)have to pay for the abortion? As someone said. " There are exceptions for every rule." But it seems that the majority of abortions are a very expensive form of birth control.

 

[YukonJack]

"I am surprised at you saying that, YJ. Aren't you opposed to all abortions? Then how can you be for the government paying for them, even for first abortion?"

SirJosephPorter, what best describes an EXTREMIST (you know, your most favourite epithat for those who have the nerve to disagree with you) is the total absence of GRAY. To an EXTREMIST everything is black or white.

Like you: Death penalty is always bad, abortion is always correct.

For people with common sense, life is not that simple. There is an expression that must have escaped you: there is an exception to every rule.

 

[JLM]

" Should the two parties(it does take two)have to pay for the abortion?"

Why not?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

It just seems funny that when doctors are willing to refuse treatment to smokers and the obese because they claim it is their own fault, and there is no outcry, but to even think to do so in abortion cases would lead to mass protest. And don't kid yourself, doctors are if not the largest single group of social engineers, they are the most powerful, and use socialized medical care as their leverage. The more the public demands government services the more intrusive government gets.

Abortion is considered a medical procedure and as such is covered by Canada Health act. It may not be all that easy to delist abortion. Not only will there be public outcry, but it probably goes against Canada Health Act.

Particularly Alberta would have stopped paying for abortions by now, if it could do so. The fact that it is still paying for abortion tells me that it is not easy to delist abortion as a medical service.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

He is also reviled and villified by a big section of the Canadian population. He is a one trick pony, he saw a niche market and exploited it, is still exploiting it, and demanding that government pay for his services. I believe he is still fighting to have New Brunswick allow him to open up there, and pay him as well, of course.

Sure he is reviled by prolifers, but he is admired and respected by the pro choice crowd. Prolifers are a minority in Canada.

And the fight is still going on in New Brunswick? I seriously doubt it. I think all the provinces these days cover abortion, some reluctantly, others enthusiastically. But I don't think there is any problem of getting paid for abortion any longer (there is still the problem of access).

Do you have a link to the New Brunswick situation? I suspect you are reading some report which is a few years old.