Abortion is harmful to the economy

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
The second trimester starts once the essential structures of the body are formed but prenatal tests like amniocentisis aren't done until well into the second trimester, and the test results don't come back right away. A woman could easily be 20 weeks before she understands her pregnancy complications. People don't choose late term abortions for contraception. They choose them after evaluating a number of serious issues, not the least of which are the quality of life for the child and family once given the facts about the situation. Issues that few of us have to face in life. Issues that are very personal, and unique. It's impossible to draw a moral timeline for all pregnancies. The only person capable of fully appreciating all of the issues and unique circumstances at hand is the pregnant mother.

Thank you for pointing out the obvious. I find it so ridiculous people think that a woman would just wait until she was about to deliver, but change her mind and abort for no reason. As though abortion is so socially acceptable in our society that she would want to wait until she was showing before aborting and then have to answer all the questions about the baby to everyone she knows...

People who say they would NEVER abort haven't seen some of the things I've seen. Google harlequin ichthyosis and tell me you'd want to carry that kind of child to term. I've posted this before, but the majority of people abort children with severe illnesses. That means pro-lifers even change their tune when it happens to them. Those people all deserve compassion, not scorn. The debate over late term abortions is too often distorted by pro-lifers to make it seem as though those decisions are made by women who just thought "nah, don't feel like having a baby afterall", when in reality it's probably the hardest decision those women will ever have to make and it's done after considering what's best for everyone concerned.
 

scratch

Senate Member
May 20, 2008
5,658
22
38
Thank you for pointing out the obvious. I find it so ridiculous people think that a woman would just wait until she was about to deliver, but change her mind and abort for no reason. As though abortion is so socially acceptable in our society that she would want to wait until she was showing before aborting and then have to answer all the questions about the baby to everyone she knows...

People who say they would NEVER abort haven't seen some of the things I've seen. Google harlequin ichthyosis and tell me you'd want to carry that kind of child to term. I've posted this before, but the majority of people abort children with severe illnesses. That means pro-lifers even change their tune when it happens to them. Those people all deserve compassion, not scorn. The debate over late term abortions is too often distorted by pro-lifers to make it seem as though those decisions are made by women who just thought "nah, don't feel like having a baby afterall", when in reality it's probably the hardest decision those women will ever have to make and it's done after considering what's best for everyone concerned.

IMO it appears that a double standard exists concerning this issue, but the decision, right or wrong, still rests solely with the mother.
 

YoungJoonKim

Electoral Member
Aug 19, 2007
690
5
18
No, it seems it is for the sake of your comfort. You don't wish to know each persons
individual circumstances, but you want to know that you are happy in the fact that
there are no abortions.

No friend, that doesn't matter. It is not my happiness but of life that could and should be secured. I am not here to assume each individuals and their reason for abortion, I am here share moral need for everyone because I don't believe possible-life should be crushed due to wrong choices each person have made. And yes, I oppose even rape cases for abortion. Do you think that aborting life is simply a way to fix a problem? I obvious don't think you do but you know what, abortion is an excuse which the society uses to escape what is inevitable: negligence and avoiding problems.

But then again, when I wake up tomorrow, I won't be helping neglected children or babies for that matter. Nor will outstanding number of Canadians. So let's just have simple and clean abortion for sake of the mother and the babies. let's just abort and solve. Let the society be free to do what to life and to death, let us kill and be happy anyways because tomorrow, the life will be the same anyways.
Good night.
 
Last edited:

Ariadne

Council Member
Aug 7, 2006
2,432
8
38
IMO it appears that a double standard exists concerning this issue, but the decision, right or wrong, still rests solely with the mother.

The really weird double standard is hovering around the magic 24 week gestation. In the US, abortion is okay until 24 weeks. Different provinces in Canada have different weeks, but all much less than 24. I think AB is 12 and ONT is 16. The weirdness comes at 24 weeks because a wanted baby is actually viable at 24 weeks and can survive with the help of an incubator, although there are frequently health issues such as blindness, heart issues, etc. This means that, in the US, a fetus that is 24 weeks old can be aborted and tossed away, or it can be induced (born, c-sectioned) and turned into a person. That's screwed up, I think.
 

Ariadne

Council Member
Aug 7, 2006
2,432
8
38
No friend, that doesn't matter. It is not my happiness but of life that could and should be secured. I am not here to assume each individuals and their reason for abortion, I am here share moral need for everyone because I don't believe possible-life should be crushed due to wrong choices each person have made. And yes, I oppose even rape cases for abortion. Do you think that aborting life is simply a way to fix a problem? I obvious don't think you do but you know what, abortion is an excuse which the society uses to escape what is inevitable: negligence and avoiding problems.

But then again, when I wake up tomorrow, I won't be helping neglected children or babies for that matter. Nor will outstanding number of Canadians. So let's just have simple and clean abortion for sake of the mother and the babies. let's just abort and solve. Let the society be free to do what to life and to death, let us kill and be happy anyways because tomorrow, the life will be the same anyways.
Good night.

If you want to discuss abortion as killing, I think we need to establish what constitutes life. If it is a heartbeat then, since it is possible to abort prior to a heartbeat, abortion is not necessarily killing.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
If you want to discuss abortion as killing, I think we need to establish what constitutes life. If it is a heartbeat then, since it is possible to abort prior to a heartbeat, abortion is not necessarily killing.
A heartbeat begins at approximately 7 weeks from ovulation (5 weeks development). That's too early know anything about the pregnancy.
 

Ariadne

Council Member
Aug 7, 2006
2,432
8
38
A heartbeat begins at approximately 7 weeks from ovulation (5 weeks development). That's too early know anything about the pregnancy.

Actually, that date is debatable as better listening devices become available. "A blood test administered by your doctor is more sensitive than the early home tests and can be taken between seven and twelve days after you conceive."

http://www.babyhopes.com/articles/results.html

I haven't verified the info or the site, but I'm inclined to believe that it's possible to tell pretty early on these days. Furthermore, since a period is expected 10 days to 2 weeks after ovulation/conception, that would be a pretty good clue about pregnancy without any testing. That's also well in advance of 7 weeks. Abortion is possible as a very simple procedure at 6 weeks.

As far as knowing whether the child is healthy, nothing is possible at that early date. It is, however, possible to abort a fetus prior to a heartbeat.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Actually, that date is debatable as better listening devices become available. "A blood test administered by your doctor is more sensitive than the early home tests and can be taken between seven and twelve days after you conceive."

http://www.babyhopes.com/articles/results.html

I haven't verified the info or the site, but I'm inclined to believe that it's possible to tell pretty early on these days. Furthermore, since a period is expected 10 days to 2 weeks after ovulation/conception, that would be a pretty good clue about pregnancy without any testing. That's also well in advance of 7 weeks. Abortion is possible as a very simple procedure at 6 weeks.

As far as knowing whether the child is healthy, nothing is possible at that early date. It is, however, possible to abort a fetus prior to a heartbeat.
I was referring to a heartbeat. The earliest you can detect one is about 6 weeks and 6 days past ovulation. Nevertheless, if you want to abort for conception purposes I suppose you pick whatever early date you want. At that early stage that is the only reason. But the real heartaches of the issue is at the 18+ weeks stage, where women aren't aborting for reasons of contraception but the pro-lifers continue to frame the issue as if that's what is happening.
 

Ariadne

Council Member
Aug 7, 2006
2,432
8
38
I was referring to a heartbeat. The earliest you can detect one is about 6 weeks and 6 days past ovulation. Nevertheless, if you want to abort for conception purposes I suppose you pick whatever early date you want. At that early stage that is the only reason. But the real heartaches of the issue is at the 18+ weeks stage, where women aren't aborting for reasons of contraception but the pro-lifers continue to frame the issue as if that's what is happening.

Someone said that abortion was murder, or killing, or something evil like that. I was merely pointing out that abortion can be done prior to a heatbeat. Therefore, it becomes necessary to define what constitutes life in order to decide whether abortion is killing, or whether in some cases it's not killing. Seems to me, it's quite possible to have an abortion without killing if it's done early enough.

I don't think picking an abortion date is like picking a c-section date. It's usually the earliest possible appointment, and that's often fairly quick, as time is of the essence.

Raising a child with genetic differences would be life altering. People have to be prepared to make the lifelong commitment, as well as potentially arrange child care after their deaths. There are plenty of parents that are hopeless in raising healthy children, I don't think we should put them in situations where they have to raise unhealthy children.

Abortion is a choice. If men want to make the choice, maybe they should have a sex change operation like the woman that thought she was a man, but then wanted to have a baby. Legally, that is a man that had a baby so that man should be able to choose whether he makes that lifelong commitment. Otherwise, I don't think so. Amnio tests can be done at 12-16 weeks, with better results if done later. The results take about 2 weeks, so parents are faced with a very difficult choice at that time. In the event of fetal abnormalities, abortion is offered later than 16 weeks in Canada.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Someone said that abortion was murder, or killing, or something evil like that. I was merely pointing out that abortion can be done prior to a heatbeat. Therefore, it becomes necessary to define what constitutes life in order to decide whether abortion is killing, or whether in some cases it's not killing. Seems to me, it's quite possible to have an abortion without killing if it's done early enough.

I don't think picking an abortion date is like picking a c-section date. It's usually the earliest possible appointment, and that's often fairly quick, as time is of the essence.

Raising a child with genetic differences would be life altering. People have to be prepared to make the lifelong commitment, as well as potentially arrange child care after their deaths. There are plenty of parents that are hopeless in raising healthy children, I don't think we should put them in situations where they have to raise unhealthy children.

Abortion is a choice. If men want to make the choice, maybe they should have a sex change operation like the woman that thought she was a man, but then wanted to have a baby. Legally, that is a man that had a baby so that man should be able to choose whether he makes that lifelong commitment. Otherwise, I don't think so. Amnio tests can be done at 12-16 weeks, with better results if done later. The results take about 2 weeks, so parents are faced with a very difficult choice at that time. In the event of fetal abnormalities, abortion is offered later than 16 weeks in Canada.
Well said. Those who call it murder will call it that at any stage of embryonic development unfortunately, though will occasionally give the green light to termination if it passes the "how she conceived it" test.
 

Ariadne

Council Member
Aug 7, 2006
2,432
8
38
Those who call it murder will call it that at any stage of embryonic development unfortunately, though will occasionally give the green light to termination if it passes the "how she conceived it" test.

How it is conceived should always be a factor.

I recently read a book by Corey Mitchell about the brutal gang rape of two girls, 14 and barely 16 years of age. It they had lived long enough to conceive, I don't think anyone in their right mind would suggest they give birth. However, rape cases are clear, and an abortion can be performed prior to a heatbeat. It's not exactly killing anyone to take the morning after pill, put it does prevent the implantation of sperm.

If it's rape, it's a quick solution ... rape victims don't sit around debating the issue unless they were raped by someone they know, and then abuse is probably an issue if the woman doesn't know if she wants to keep the baby of rape.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
The thing is, why the rape exception? I mean, if people believe abortion is murder, then it should always be murder regardless of how the pregnancy came into existence. I also don't understand why there is an exception for pill users. Why is an implanted embryo a person, but it isn't before then? I have a friend who won't use birth control pills for this reason. I disagree with her, but I respect the fact that she's consistent and actually walks the walk.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Ariadne and Tracy

I agree with both. Of course I'm ok with abortion after rape, but then again I'm ok with the mother-to-be always having the right. I'm also glad she can say no to abortion after rape.

Like Tracy said, if it has full human rights how can any possible methods of conception be suitable for abortion? The embryo/fetus is not the rapist. Why would it be ok for it to die for the actions of someone else?

What if the woman technically raped someone? That's an angle that is rarely discussed, if at all. Any opinions on that kind of situation?
 

Ariadne

Council Member
Aug 7, 2006
2,432
8
38
Ariadne and Tracy

I agree with both. Of course I'm ok with abortion after rape, but then again I'm ok with the mother-to-be always having the right. I'm also glad she can say no to abortion after rape.

Like Tracy said, if it has full human rights how can any possible methods of conception be suitable for abortion? The embryo/fetus is not the rapist. Why would it be ok for it to die for the actions of someone else?

What if the woman technically raped someone? That's an angle that is rarely discussed, if at all. Any opinions on that kind of situation?

Well that is an interesting perspective. Seems to me that if a man was forced to have sex and it resulted in an unwanted child from his perspective, then he should have some rights, but it gets pretty murky. I doubt he would be responsible for child support, although he may have good grounds for sole custody. As far as an abortion ... no clue how that would play out. I suppose he would also have grounds for demanding an abortion, but by the time it played out in court it could easily be argued that it was too late. Lawyers often delay as a tactic.
 

scratch

Senate Member
May 20, 2008
5,658
22
38
Well that is an interesting perspective. Seems to me that if a man was forced to have sex and it resulted in an unwanted child from his perspective, then he should have some rights, but it gets pretty murky. I doubt he would be responsible for child support, although he may have good grounds for sole custody. As far as an abortion ... no clue how that would play out. I suppose he would also have grounds for demanding an abortion, but by the time it played out in court it could easily be argued that it was too late. Lawyers often delay as a tactic.

Delay is a synonym for lawyer.
 

china

Time Out
Jul 30, 2006
5,247
37
48
73
Ottawa ,Canada
Abortions are harmful to babies [95% of them] nonetheless.
I don't care about your special "cases." Most of the abortion done is due to the fact that MANY people lack a simple logic: "sex produce babies." Why should babies suffer because people have sex? Nice going..but not convincing.

Ni shi dui de .
 

china

Time Out
Jul 30, 2006
5,247
37
48
73
Ottawa ,Canada
YoungJoonKim
No friend, that doesn't matter. It is not my happiness but of life that could and should be secured. I am not here to assume each individuals and their reason for abortion, I am here share moral need for everyone because I don't believe possible-life should be crushed due to wrong choices each person have made. And yes, I oppose even rape cases for abortion. Do you think that aborting life is simply a way to fix a problem? I obvious don't think you do but you know what, abortion is an excuse which the society uses to escape what is inevitable: negligence and avoiding problems.

We need a revolution; not in the society, but in our individual self.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Doctors who perform abortions should be ordered to pay one hundred thousand per baby aborted to the Government of Canada for lost taxes,lost employment opportunities.


Yes, let's sue abortionists because the Government doesn't get that one extra person to suck money from.... because you know, that's all that's going for us in our lives.... to shell out money to our government.... what a wonderful outlook on life before you're even born.

Abortion should be treated like cigarettes they are legal to buy but illegal to smoke in most areas.
The anti-abortionists should take their fight into the courts just like the anti-smoking group.


Yeah, well the Anti-Smoking group has certainly lost their marbles in the process, interfering in the personal business of other people in which their matters don't concern you or those idiot groups, it is their business what they choose to do in their lives, not your's.

Case in Point... you can no longer smoke out on patios and decks at resturants because it may harm the health of those around you.... yet there's still nothing done about the bumper to bumper traffic idling two feet away from where you're eating, spewing much much more harmful crap into your lungs then you could ever wish to gain from 5 minutes of sitting next to someone smoking.

Yeah, those guys sure do have their heads screwed on straight, that's for sure. :roll:

The anti-smoking groups jumped up and down for years with no results that smoking is bad until they took it to court and started to fight that “second hand smoke that hurts people that don’t smoke” as an argument.

Then perhaps they should start smoking.

Initually they lost but kept on fighting it until they won.
The anti-abortion groups gets millions of dollars in donation money from people that want the present abortion laws changed and the courts would be the best place for positive change.


Just because you have money filling your pockets, doesn't make you right.

If the current laws are not affecting your ability to raise a healthy family, then quite honestly, piss off and stop trying to change other people's lives where it doesn't affect you.

It boils down to simplistics:

• One side wants the choices available to decide what happens in their lives
• The other side is ignorant and wants to force their personal morals and opinions onto a group of people which has no bearing on their own personal lives.

Pro-Choice people want the choice to be available to anybody who wishes to seek it out. Anti-Abortion people have already made their choice in the matter, and are now trying to force their own choices onto other people, as if they're the compass of perfectional morality.

The women have the right to choose to have an abortion but they have to pay for future of society degregation.

That's got to be the most retarded thing I've heard thus far today. Nobody has any responsibility or obligation to contribute to society in any fashion or another, let alone having to spawn children so the government can milk more money from them. If someone wants to take off into the woods and live as a hermit, or go off the grid, they can damn well do it if they wish, and if they don't want to have children and fok their brains out, they can do that as well.

What about a woman who's had a hysterectomy for some medical reason or another? Oh no, they might still be having sex, but they can't have kids, and since they got a hysterectomy..... THAT MUST HAVE BEEN GENOCIDE! Quick! Someone shove another Uterus into her before she has sex again, before our society is degraded any further!!

Do you realize how stupid this sounds?

I sure as hell don't see murderers in jail paying out the rest of the taxes their victims would have owed to the government due to their natural lives..... and who is to say how long someone may or may not live? How many months, years, decades of money do you think is suitable for compensation? Can you predict how long someone will live for, or what might cause their deaths?

What about a miscarriage? Who's responsible for the loss of that infant? The Doctors? The parents? God??

A woman that has an abortion should pay double taxation to the government for life and if they decide to have another abortion then triple tax and so on.

And I'd tell you to shove your taxes right up your ass.... no offense.

When abortion was made legal in the 1970’s a lot of people lost their jobs because the Generation X dramatically decreased because schools had to be closed because of the lack of kids being born all the services and manufacturing sectors suffered as Generation X grew up.

Oh darn! Humans slowed down in their massive over population of the planet and saved the planet for a few more decades from our distruction.

If a parasite doesn't learn how to become a coexisting parasite with it's environment, it will eventually over grow its available resources it is massively consumming, and not only will kill its environment, but itself as well.

If it's not abortions, it'll be starvation.... if it's not starvation, it'll be wars, if not Wars, it'll be natural disasters, if not disasters, it'll be disease.

People die, sometimes before they even become people.... get used to it.

Our sociaty needs a fresh supply of babies on a regular bases to survive if we lose that due to abortions then we eventually start to see negative population growth which puts preasure for the governments to increase immigration and let people in that don’t have the same beliefs as we do.

Oh my holy jesbutt, there it is! The comming out of the prejudicial isolationism.... to seperate other cultures and societies who might cloud the moral fabric of the Christian monopoly.....

In other words, there are less and less people going and following the Christian faith, through it's own evil doings with raping/molesting young children, trying to cast out those different from them, such as homosexuals, blacks for a number of years in the south, and many other things over the centuries with witch huntings and ignorant fear of the unknown..... the Christian battle now lies in trying to recruit more followers, be that through continual moral pressure and bible banging, or by force by trying to change the laws and restrict the freedoms of others based on their own moral opinions, regardless of what other people may think.

Christians need more people they can point their fingers as and to recruit, so they need the courts to ban abortions, so those parents will give those kids up for adoption, and thus those orphans will usually end up in a Christian Orphanage, to be raised Christians, and their teachers will tell them how evil their parents were for wanting to abort them, only to be able to send them off for adoption, and gradually invoke more fear and hatred for the unknown... and create a whole new mass populace of God Fearing Ignorants, by force.

How wonderful.

Those families that come to Canada will bring with them their five or six kids that we need.

So it balances out, if not more.... what's the problem? Oh, because they might be different from you or have different religious views and might attempt to change the laws again, just as you wish to do?

Now a lot of women will say that they can’t take care of the their babies because of problems they might have.
In Canada couples that can’t have a baby or children have to wait years to get one.


That's their life and that's their problem, not mine. You want to have a kid? There's millions already starving in Africa, go take your pick.

Other women say that they can’t afford to bring their baby to term this is where our government has to step up to the plate give support let the baby bonus start at the time of a confirmed birth.

Yeah, if one can barely afford to keep themselves going with the level of costs we deal with today, with the unending wars and new ones being planned by countries surrounding us, with the global warming/climate change fears, school shootings, and the sort going on daily in our lives..... why is it a suprise many younger couples don't want to have a kid?

Who the hell wants to bring up a child in this kind of world, with people continually trying to set new laws and rules for how they should live their lives? Who is to say they're going to have a decent life anyways? They could be born, only to die a year or two later from some war, or natural disaster where half the country is swallowed up into the ocean?

Honestly.... there's plenty of things and reasons which make many young couples not want to have a child..... how about you concentrate your morals and court fightings to change those things, and then perhaps more people might be willing to raise children.

If the anti-abortionists take this argument to court and keep on fighting this then there will be a dramatic decrease in abortions.

No there won't.

Women will still have the right to choose to have an abortion but with consiquences they will choose more carefully.

And that won't ever happen. Trust me..... if in the future in my relationship we have an abortion, I can't wait to see you attempt to take me to court over it..... just see how fast your little plan get's shot down and then turned around for you to pay for my court expenses and time missed at work for this BS.

All I have typed above was just what first popped out of my head.... just imagine what would happen if I actually sat down and took an hour or so to form up an actual legal case against your plan with a lawyer?

There are way too many ways to destroy your above plan.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
What about all the welfare we save with abortion. Maybe we should pay doctor $100,000 to abort babies of welfare moms.

It is a two way street.

Don't forget about all the hospital visits, work comp, and other expenses those people would incur if they were actually born. It all cancels each other out in my books.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Abortions are harmful to babies [95% of them] nonetheless.

No, abortions are harmful to 100% of the fetuses involved.

I don't care about your special "cases."

Good, because I don't care about your "Moral Reasons."

Most of the abortion done is due to the fact that MANY people lack a simple logic: "sex produce babies."

Sorry, many people are not as stupid as you would like to make them out to be. Many know what sex can lead to, that is why they use condoms, birth control, and the sort..... and sometimes those things don't work, and thus, they have an abortion.... don't like it? Deal with it.

Why should babies suffer because people have sex? Nice going..but not convincing.

Yes.... that argument is about as logical as "Oh those poor baby seals being clubbed!"

The baby.... correction... THE FETUS doesn't suffer. You saying so, doesn't make it so.

Prove to me that a fetus can actually suffer within the split second or two it is destroyed, and I might start to take this argument seriously.