Tory G8 abortion stance

[Machjo]

Machjo, your stories are sad, indeed.

But it would not be an issue, if abortion had not been attempted/performed.

Well, they're not my stories.

The way I see it though, is that Canada comes across as inconsistent when it accepts exposing infants to such risks in Canada but not abroad.

To make it a consistent policy, we'd have to conclude that either foreign funds can fund abortion too o we don't fund medicine abroad at all. Between those two choices, I'd rather we simply not fund medicine abroad at all so as to keep it consistent. Perhaps we could focus on education or other areas less likely to cause confrontation.

Definitely Canada must protect infants from such harm both in Canada and abroad. But as long as it's allowed in Canada, it does come across as hypocritical for the government to not fund it abroad. Again, I think the best solution would be for the government to bow out of medical funding altogether and just focus on educational funding instead.

 

[Avro]

PSA examination is covered in Ontario, under certain conditions. I don’t know about BC.



That is your opinion only. You have no scientific evidence to prove it, only religious evidence, religious superstition (and that too superstition from right wing extremist religions).

So a fetus isn't alive?

A seriously beg to differ.

 

[Machjo]

So a fetus isn't alive?

A seriously beg to differ.

Nope. There is no relationship whatsoever between a fetus and a person. It's just pure coincidence that the following abortion survivors ended up damaged by an attempted abortion on the fetus which according to SJP has nothing to do with the infant.

Besides, why do physicians advise pregnant mothers not to drink or smoke for the sake of the fetus. Why should we care for the fetus at all if it has zilch to do with the infant?

 

[YukonJack]

Machjo, just as Canada funds its own abortions, so should all the countries of the world, and leave Canada (and even more importantly MY TAX DOLLARS) OUT OF IT!!

Besides, (look up any and all statistics) countries with unrestricted abortion laws are on a definite and unreversible suicide path, paving the way for complete takeover by those whose only skills are the same as rabbits and mice.

 

[AnnaG]

You are the one that called all women that get abortions promiscuous. You are the one that missed the point of what Les said and babbled on about mammograms.
Refute what I said. Show us some links to back up your promiscuity comment. Come on Jack, it should be easy. Back up your comment that women that get abortions are promiscuous and haven't the brains to use pregnancy prevention. Show us where any contraceptive is 100% effective all the time. Show us where sometimes the health of the woman isn't a factor. Put up or shut up.
You old people are all the same; cannot learn anything new, cannot change your minds when new evidence is found, etc. Bunch of has-beens.

 

[Avro]

I am intellectually challenged? You are the one that missed the point of what Les said and babbled on about mammograms.
Refute what I said. Show us some links to back up your promiscuity comment. Come on Jack, it should be easy. Back up your comment that women that get abortions are promiscuous and haven't the brains to use pregnancy prevention. Show us where any contraceptive is 100% effective all the time. Show us where sometimes the health of the woman isn't a factor. Put up or shut up.

If contraception doesn't work, that is the risk you take.

Still no reason to end a life, that would be time for the Mom and Dad to take responsibility for a little fun.

My wife and I had our first son while she was on the pill. Didn't even entertain the idea of abortion.

 

[AnnaG]

My question was, simply that if abortion (which is a totally preventable non-medical condition)

That's straight bullshyte. It is not preventable sometimes and pregnancy is a medical condition. You missed too many classes, didn't you? Try and keep up. Maybe if the rest of the class slowed down for the doddering oldies .....

is covered by health care why a PSA examination is not.

OHIP will cover prostate test ordered by doctor | Canada | News | Toronto Sun
Why it isn't covered in BC is probably the same reason a lot of other things aren't covered; political BS and simple oversight.
BC Medical Journal - BCMJ

 

[Avro]

Anna:

If you don't have sex it is preventable.

Full stop....that's science.

 

[AnnaG]

Well, they're not my stories.

The way I see it though, is that Canada comes across as inconsistent when it accepts exposing infants to such risks in Canada but not abroad.

Canada is inconsistent about a lot of medical issues within itself. Why should it be consistent abroad?

To make it a consistent policy, we'd have to conclude that either foreign funds can fund abortion too o we don't fund medicine abroad at all. Between those two choices, I'd rather we simply not fund medicine abroad at all so as to keep it consistent. Perhaps we could focus on education or other areas less likely to cause confrontation.

Canada funds a lot of stuff overseas. Why can't these other countries take some of the money and provide abortions? I even remember ChRETIeN totally cancelling another country's entire debt to Canada when he was PM.

Definitely Canada must protect infants from such harm both in Canada and abroad. But as long as it's allowed in Canada, it does come across as hypocritical for the government to not fund it abroad. Again, I think the best solution would be for the government to bow out of medical funding altogether and just focus on educational funding instead.

That's one solution. But the feds should still be able to set the standard across Canada. Otherwise there'd be an awful lot of imbalances created between the provinces.

If contraception doesn't work, that is the risk you take.

Still no reason to end a life, that would be time for the Mom and Dad to take responsibility for a little fun.

My wife and I had our first son while she was on the pill. Didn't even entertain the idea of abortion.

In case you have forgotten, I have stated my views on abortion plenty of times. Again, I think it should only be paid for when it is medically necessary.
I am happy you have a son.

AnnaG, if you feel free and justified to call me names, (remember Yukon JackASS?), pardon me if I say something that might offend your sensibilities.

I have principles. And my principles prompt me to object to abortions for frivolous and aesthetic reasons, but not medical reasons. And that objection has nothing to do with a religious;y biased motive but a rational one.

 

[AnnaG]

Anna:

If you don't have sex it is preventable.

Full stop....that's science.

......among other things. It's just sensible.
If you have sex and get pregnant and totally want the baby, but it develops undiagnosed pre-eclampsia, Tay-Sachs, Spina Bifida, severe heart defect, etc., then I can see abortion being necessary. Otherwise adoption is a valid alternative.

Show us the evidence that all women who get abortions are promiscuous. Why can't you admit that this is only just your opinion and not even close to being a fact?

But that is only my opinion.

*shrugs*

Anyway, I can't see why Canada should fund other countries' abortions. They should cover their own. It isn't like they get help in other ways from other countries.
Having said that, it would be a bit hypocritical of Canada to fund abortions and then tell other countries they shouldn't, but I don't think that is what's happening.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

According to SirJosephPorter:

"PSA examination is covered in Ontario, under certain conditions. I don’t know about BC."

I lived in Ontario until 2007. While living there, every time my family doctor instructed me to get a PSA test, I paid for it myself.

If Ontario funds it now, great. I guess I just missed out.

i think they started funding it in the last couple of years. As i said before, they don't cover all the PSA tests, but only some.

False:

Abortion Survivors

Abortion Survivors

Actually, I wonder if these survivors can sue the physician for the damage caused to them? And the hospital if it officially approved the abortion?



False. His assertion that abortions are 100% reliable has no basis in religion. Nowhere in any sacred text does it guarantee that all abortions will be successful. The following proves him wrong too by the way:

Abortion Survivors

I was not referring to that. Machjo. I was referring to the assertion (indeed, superstition) that abortion takes a human life.

SirJosephPorter opined, regarding abortion:

"You have no scientific evidence to prove it, only religious evidence, religious superstition (and that too superstition from right wing extremist religions)."

Well, if you don't abort, there WILL be human life in a few months/weeks.

If you abort, there will NOT be one.

Not necessarily, there MAY be a human life in a few weeks. Several things may happen before that. The women may have a miscarriage, she may be killed (murder, suicide, accident, disease etc.). So if there is no abortion, pregnancy MAY result in a human life, not WILL result in human life.

Or you'll deliver an injured infant.

Or you may not deliver one at all, or may deliver a stillborn infant (due to the possibilities I already mentioned).

So a fetus isn't alive?

A seriously beg to differ.

We have had extensive discussion on this before, several times. Avro. But if you are interested, put up a separate thread and I will be happy to engage you there (but let me know by PM about it, these days I don't have as much time to participate here as I would like, and I may not check new threads for several days, if the discussion is still ongoing in the current threads).

Nope. There is no relationship whatsoever between a fetus and a person. It's just pure coincidence that the following abortion survivors ended up damaged by an attempted abortion on the fetus which according to SJP has nothing to do with the infant.

Besides, why do physicians advise pregnant mothers not to drink or smoke for the sake of the fetus. Why should we care for the fetus at all if it has zilch to do with the infant?

Again, this is not the proper place for the discussion as to whether fetus is alive, whether it is a human being etc. Put up a separate thread if you wish.

 

[JLM]

P.S.A.s arent covered in B.C. and I don't think they should be UNLESS it is done to confirm a true positive by the digital method. :smile::smile: As for abortions they should be funded if done to save the Mother's life, otherwise there is no way I want to be billed for it.

 

[Avro]

......among other things. It's just sensible.
If you have sex and get pregnant and totally want the baby, but it develops undiagnosed pre-eclampsia, Tay-Sachs, Spina Bifida, severe heart defect, etc., then I can see abortion being necessary. Otherwise adoption is a valid alternative.

Show us the evidence that all women who get abortions are promiscuous. Why can't you admit that this is only just your opinion and not even close to being a fact?

I never said I was completely against abortion, just not used as a form of birth control. If the baby is healthy, doesn't threaten the life of the mother or was forcefully conceived I support the choice of the woman to abort.

I never said that all women who get abortions are promiscuous...YJ did. Notice how Mr. Fair and Balanced never puts the onus on the male.:roll:

 

[Kreskin]

I never said I was completely against abortion, just not used as a form of birth control. If the baby is healthy, doesn't threaten the life of the mother or was forcefully conceived I support the choice of the woman to abort.

I never said that all women who get abortions are promiscuous...YJ did. Notice how Mr. Fair and Balanced never puts the onus on the male.:roll:

Every birth is a threat to a woman's life. A CanCon member lost his wife during delivery a couple of years ago.

 

[JLM]

Nope. There is no relationship whatsoever between a fetus and a person. It's just pure coincidence that the following abortion survivors ended up damaged by an attempted abortion on the fetus which according to SJP has nothing to do with the infant.

Besides, why do physicians advise pregnant mothers not to drink or smoke for the sake of the fetus. Why should we care for the fetus at all if it has zilch to do with the infant?

Absolutely bang on Machjo- I think a lot of the problem on this and several other threads is that People try to follow what S.J.P. (and a couple of others) are saying, when in fact they have no knowledge about what the speak and if the truth be known are actually a polite form of raving lunatics. :lol::lol::lol:

 

[Avro]

Every birth is a threat to a woman's life. A CanCon member lost his wife during delivery a couple of years ago.

Sure, all part of the natural effect of life.

Still, using abortion as a form of bith control is wrong.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Sure, all part of the natural effect of life.

Still, using abortion as a form of bith control is wrong.

It is wrong only if one believes that abortion kills human life. Since I don't, I don't see anything wrong with it. Now, one could argue that abortion is not a preferred method of birth control, simply because it is too messy and too cumbersome. Practicing birth control before conception is just that much easier and simpler than after conception. However, I don't see anything wrong with it.

 

[JLM]

It is wrong only if one believes that abortion kills human life. Since I don't, I don't see anything wrong with it. .

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[Machjo]

It is wrong only if one believes that abortion kills human life. Since I don't, I don't see anything wrong with it. Now, one could argue that abortion is not a preferred method of birth control, simply because it is too messy and too cumbersome. Practicing birth control before conception is just that much easier and simpler than after conception. However, I don't see anything wrong with it.

I'd asked you before when human life begins and you've never been able to give a clear answer, only vagueness. If you can't tell precisely when life begins, then how can you know when it doesn't begin?

Simple point here: Once it has the capacity to become a full grown human without further intervention, then it is human. Looking at it that way, life begins at conception.

Hey, SJP, so if I believed that life began only 1 year after birth, then it would be fine to put a bullet through its head because I don't believe it's alive?

 

[JLM]

I'd asked you before when human life begins and you've never been able to give a clear answer, only vagueness. If you can't tell precisely when life begins, then how can you know when it doesn't begin?

Simple point here: Once it has the capacity to become a full grown human without further intervention, then it is human. Looking at it that way, life begins at conception.

Hey, SJP, so if I believed that life began only 1 year after birth, then it would be fine to put a bullet through its head because I don't believe it's alive?

Now we are seeing some common sense. :smile: