Parliamentary group wants to reopen abortion debate

[Francis2004]

You should definitely have the choice as an adult, BUT should you sustain serious injuries caused by not wearing it then you should NOT be covered under the public health system. The ones who do wear them shouldn't have to fork out for others' stupidity.

JLM, It has been proposed that those who refuse to wear helmets or safety gear pay a premium for doing so. I have no issue with that. If you are willing to go out of your way and sign the disclaimer that says you do not plan to wear a helmet, then so be it..

On the seat belt issue, that is quite a bit more dicy.. In the olden days I would have agreed.. But in todays vehicles that have more airbags then screws I have to say the sealbelt is more of a hazzard.. I was recently hit from behind and would have had no personal damage had it not been for the seat belt. Hence I cost ICBC money due to a seat belt..

That said, I believe in wearing my seat belt for other reasons..

Sorry for going off topic..

 

[Kreskin]

RE's generally don't like low counts because some pregnancies are chemical (very early m/c). They generally call you pg if it is 50+, and even then cautiously because about one-third of all pregnancies miscarry, and most of those losses don't even know they were pregnant unless they tracked it.

Plus to add, RE's like to see two beta blood hCG tests; the second conducted a few days later should show a doubling rate every 48-72 hours.

 

[Machjo]

Big can o worms! OK, morality was the wrong word. The government has no business interfering in our private lives unless we are harming our partner or children. OK, know that brings up the old argument whether fetuses are human but, consider this: how many millions of children in Canada live below the poverty line? How many Canadian children are malnourished? Could we call child obesity child abuse?

Good points, but that's a separate issue from abortion. Certainly society has a duty to provide quality educaiton for all. But unfortunately we're more worried about owning a fancy car than about our nation's children. The fault is ours. Even the government spends much of our money on luxuries like paintings and the like. It's a matter of priorities.

We should be more concerned with making the children we have are treated with respect than with whether or not every time some guy knocks up some woman that the fetus is born. Because like it or not, a great number of women get knocked up by accident (ie: during a drunken indiscretion, forgot the pill, condom leaked, etc) Women who chose to get pregnant don't usually have second thoughts.

If we stopped being so materialistic, we have more than enough resources to support more children.

Unless a child is brought into the world by the choice of its parents, chances are too high that the child will be abused, neglected or abandoned. That is too high a price for that child to pay because some self righteous clowns decided that abortion is murder or immoral. The emotional and mental suffering that unwanted children go through is not justification for self righteousness. The woman should be the only one who has a say in whether or not she is ready to give that child a good life.

That is a danger, but it can be countered through quality education, help for the poor, and tough laws for violators. We are not poor. We do have the resources. We're just not willing to share our piece of the trough.

 

[Cliffy]

If we stopped being so materialistic, we have more than enough resources to support more children.

Machjo,That is a big if and not likely to happen until the economy tanks completely, then we won't have the resources to give every child a "quality" education.

 

[tracy]

I think the problem with the abortion debate is people try to fan flames with ridiculous statements. Kill a baby the second before it's born? I'm one of the few people I know who has actually worked doing late term abortions (and will admit it). They were ALL on wanted children whose parents found out they has extremely serious medical conditions. I would probably have made the same choice as them and many of you would too whether you like to admit that or not. It's so easy to say you'd never do something when that situation has never happened to you. I have never seen a woman just decide she doesn't want to be pregnant at 30 weeks and get an abortion. That argument is a red herring and insulting to the families that have had to face the difficult decision of terminating a pregnancy at that stage.

 

[mit]

Other than the coat hanger option - having a baby to full term then giving it up either by the woman's choice or as was the case in the old days her parents leaves 2 individuals in the world wondering if they would have been different had the two stayed together - A person who knows they were adopted may feel unwanted - they may harbour a grudge against their adopted parents or the mother that gave them up - Siblings that find out when they are 30 that they have another brother usually do not take it well - especially when the issue of inheritance comes up - Having the baby full term is not necessarily the end of problems - These issues can lay dormant for years or start right off the hop - There are thousands of kids in foster care that have issues they debate in their heads as to why they were born. Abortion is a big picture issue that can not be solved only dealt with. Taking the choice of the table is not a good option.

 

[Tyr]

If we stopped being so materialistic, we have more than enough resources to support more children.

Machjo,That is a big if and not likely to happen until the economy tanks completely, then we won't have the resources to give every child a "quality" education.

If we stopped being so materialistic, we have more than enough resources to support more children.

I was channel surfing last night and they actually have a "show" on about some loon with 17 kids.

Not withstanding that anybody would have a hard time remembering all the names. is it moral to populate the world with 17 kids from one family? What if every family decided to have a dozen or more kids? Do you think "OVERPOPULATION" would soon outflank Climate Change as the #1 environmental issue of the day

 

[Kreskin]

Apparently if you have 8 or more kids you get to have your own tv show. Good thing cuz there's no other way to bring them up.

 

[JLM]

Apparently if you have 8 or more kids you get to have your own tv show. Good thing cuz there's no other way to bring them up.

I think a lot of the family values and such things as co-operation, thrift, resourcefulness, sharing, compassion are more prevalent in large famililes.

 

[Tyr]

I think a lot of the family values and such things as co-operation, thrift, resourcefulness, sharing, compassion are more prevalent in large famililes.

don't forget irresponsibility

 

[JLM]

don't forget irresponsibility

I can't honestly say I've noticed that one.

 

[darkbeaver]

I believe that life begins at conception.

That's a common misconception. The life in question is the product of two living organisms, at no time was there a state of nonlife to transition from. All life therefore is an extension of previously existing life and not in fact new life but new extensions of original life. I know its abstruse but it's friday night and I'v sworn off the booze.:smile:

 

[JLM]

I believe that life begins at conception.

That's a common misconception. The life in question is the product of two living organisms, at no time was there a state of nonlife to transition from. All life therefore is an extension of previously existing life and not in fact new life but new extensions of original life. I know its abstruse but it's friday night and I'v sworn off the booze.:smile:

Bingo, you are indeed wise.....:lol:

 

[Francis2004]

Apparently if you have 8 or more kids you get to have your own tv show. Good thing cuz there's no other way to bring them up.

If we stopped being so materialistic, we have more than enough resources to support more children.

I was channel surfing last night and they actually have a "show" on about some loon with 17 kids.

Not withstanding that anybody would have a hard time remembering all the names. is it moral to populate the world with 17 kids from one family? What if every family decided to have a dozen or more kids? Do you think "OVERPOPULATION" would soon outflank Climate Change as the #1 environmental issue of the day

Interesting points.. My Dad's side of the family had 14 kids.. No Government help and his Father died when he was 10.. My Mom's side of the Family had 8 kids and her Mom died when she was was 9.

In the gold old days of 1930's it was the norm to have that many kids and in many countries it still is the norm to have at least 4 to 6 kids..

Canada is in a situation of population decrease so we have increased our immigration. The fact that Seniors will out pace our kids in two to 5 years is a major issue in that our Canada and Old Age pension plans may not be there when I retire. Had we continued to a more moderate rate of having children we would have kept up. The US has a slightly better rate then us.

Lets face reality that most of our generation have 1 to 2 kids.. If you have two kids, that barely replaces the two adults that will become seniors..

That is besides those children who are gay, die an early age and so on.. Realistically we should be having 4 kids to stabilize the population of Canada let alone grow it..

Anyhow I have adopted one and had one. If I could have had another at that time I would have, but things were not to be and I would not have had children just for the sake of having them..

 

[Kreskin]

Everyone had big families years ago. Now it's financially impossible, thus the requirement of a TV show.

 

[Cliffy]

If we stopped being so materialistic, we have more than enough resources to support more children.

I was channel surfing last night and they actually have a "show" on about some loon with 17 kids.

Not withstanding that anybody would have a hard time remembering all the names. is it moral to populate the world with 17 kids from one family? What if every family decided to have a dozen or more kids? Do you think "OVERPOPULATION" would soon outflank Climate Change as the #1 environmental issue of the day

I'm thinking that overpopulation is the cause of Climate Change - all those breathing, farting carbon based units! My Gawd, the shear volume of methane produced daily would be enough to blow a hole in the ozone! 8O

 

[JLM]

"I was channel surfing last night and they actually have a "show" on about some loon with 17 kids."- Comments like that are hurtful and hateful. It's nobody else's business except the guy and his wife AS LONG as he supports them and raises them with the intent to be self-supporting responsible citizens

 

[Cliffy]

I was channel surfing last night and they actually have a "show" on about some loon with 17 kids.

Reminds me of Monty Python's Meaning of Life: "I was laid of of my job today. We're going to have to sell you all off for scientific experiments."

 

[Cliffy]

YouTube - Monty Python - Every Sperm is Sacred

 

[Machjo]

Everyone had big families years ago. Now it's financially impossible, thus the requirement of a TV show.

Ask yourself, why is it not possible anymore? It doesn't make sence, with technology making things even easier. The only explanation is costs. In the past, people have fewer cars, which meant fewer roads. Now with so many cars, we pay more taxes for bigger roads. Then we have globalization. IN itself it's not a bad thing, but as the world gets more complex, companies have to factor in more translation costs for labels, ingredients, etc. sometimes in many languages. War has become more expensive too, with the armes race ever more high tech. If anything, life should be easier now than before. It's just a matter of governments finding out where the inefficiencies are and restructuring to make it more efficient. I don't care whether it's a free market economy or a socialist one or anything in between, as long as it's efficient. Clearly it isn't and all the parties are to blame for that.