No physical difference, only location. The Baby hasn't changed, just the location has changed.
Abortion -The poll is not based upon Religious belief - It is based ethics
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
No physical difference, only location. The Baby hasn't changed, just the location has changed.
Besides being the most arrogant A$$hole you are also the stupidest. It's got nothing to do with what it's worth. How many times do you think $100,000 can be forked out before the pot is empty. Grab a brain dimwit!
Actually, yes, there are a lot of physical differences. For one thing, they are no longer attached to the mother and drawing all of their oxygen and sustenance directly from the mother.
If you go back to when abortions are actually available, there are tons of physical differences between a fetus and something that can actually viably live outside of the womb.
No, I think it is you that needs to "grab a brain". Money is an arbitrary item. "WE" assign it, it's "value". Technically, "we" could say that when it comes to children, there is no "cost" to the medical needs.
I see you are no longer using the term "baby". Too bad.
The money is just a proxy for the actual resources required.
We only have so many doctors and nurses, and someone has to pay their salary.
We only have so many physical resources. We only have so many supplies. We can't get more of these things out of thin air.
I do for babies.
We do not know if anyone in Canada is doing late term abortion, because records do not have to be kept, and the murder of a full term child is perfectly legal, as long as it has not exited the birth canal.
My point was, yet again, that your claim that such things were NOT happening because no doctor would do such a thing is absolutely ridiculous. I could have as easily mentioned Dr. Joseph Mengele or Dr. Carl Clauberg, or Dr. Harold Shipman, ....my point being that there are people out there that can and will do anything for one reason or another.......
Got it now??
Oh, so these doctors, nurses and other professionals work for free? No money is NOT an arbitrary item and we DON'T assign it its value- its value is dependent on the value of the stuff that backs it up. Used to be gold at one time, now it's just the worth of everything in the country. I know you think money is no problem but for the rest of us it is!
Oh yes, I see that money is a problem for many. Money is more important than a life. It's quite sad, actually, it is sickening.
bump
It might be sickening depending on how you take it, but it's still reality. Do you send every last dollar you can spare to places like Somalia and Ethiopia? -
It might be sickening depending on how you take it, but it's still reality. Do you send every last dollar you can spare to places like Somalia and Ethiopia? -
again, "dollars" are arbitrary, you can't eat them, you can't build with them, you can't drink them.
Very good shot at changing the subject though.
Ok. We can't prove a negative, so I guess all I can say is that medical rules in Canada do not allow doctors to perform abortions after 24 weeks, and only in rare circumstances after 20 weeks, and there is no evidence to suggest that any doctor in Canada is operating outside of those rules.
Your examples are pretty ridiculous. For starters, two of them were Nazi's and actually acting completely within the rules set out for them at the time. The other guy is just a straight up murderer.
If there is no evidence that there is a problem, and you seem to have endless examples about how passing laws against these things doesn't stop people from doing it, what exactly are you hoping to achieve with this?
The money is just a proxy for the actual resources required.
We only have so many doctors and nurses, and someone has to pay their salary.
We only have so many physical resources. We only have so many supplies. We can't get more of these things out of thin air.
Gimme the rules, chapter and verse, please.
BTW, if they are NOT happening, why not simply pass a law making abortion beyond 24 weeks illegal unless the continued pregnancy is a severe threat to the mother's physical health??
One example:
"Abortion procedures in approved facilities shall be limited to gestational ages of not greater than twenty (20)weeks / 0 days."
http://www.cpsa.ab.ca/libraries/pro_qofc_non_hospital/NHSF_-_Termination_of_Pregnancy.pdf?sfvrsn=12
Why do you want the government to get involved in anything when there is no evidence that they need to?
I don't think involving lawyers and politicians in something that wasn't broken has ever made it better. Doctors already have to answer to their college about things like this. Adding the threat of lawyers coming at them when there is no evidence that it is necessary just makes these tough medical decisions even harder for no real benefit.
I also am cautious about proposals for new laws because advocates have shown time and time again that they want to bring up stuff like late term abortion or sex selection primarily as an excuse to fight for more general restrictions on abortion.
Last edited:
Typical Con thinking in black and white.
The point is that they are so rare that it's not worth worrying about legislation. The second point is that as technology improves, there will be opportunities to ensure even late stage abortions do not cause pain to the fetus or physical harm to the mother.
Legislating at this point would contradict those efforts and could even begin a slippery slope for prolifers to demand further restrictive legislation.
Abortion is not doing a good enough job of population control. Over population is putting too much strain on the Biosphere. It ius time for a major cull of the human population, perhaps nuking all the major cities would be good start.
(inspired by Sleepy's comment above)
(inspired by Sleepy's comment above)