The ABORTION thread.

[ExtraSlow]

Good place to debate and discuss abortion. Lot of popular topics within this have popped up.

- Are late term abortions illegal in Canada?
- are "late stage" abortions happening in Canada, or elsewhere?
- Do unborn fetuses gain rights "over time" or "all at once"?
- what is the difference between "voluntary" and "medical" abortions, and who determines that?
- it is possible to determine these things from first principles?
- what role does religion or cultural practice play?
- is a "true libertarian" pro-life or pro-choice?

if any mod feels like bringing the posts from other threads here, I think that would be reasonable.
I'm sure @Buster has much more to say on the topic, and @davidI too likely. @Misterman ,

[SJW]

I support doing whatever the hell you want.

[Sentry]

I say we hold a thunderdome esque cage match and just let the women duke it out over this

[max_boost]

Amen
That’s freedom
That’s privilege
You are the architect of your life


Support women’s right to choose
If there’s a no go zone, 22-24 weeks seems like the point of no return

[suntan]

Kill it before it grows. The thread I mean.

[Tik-Tok]

Let's really kick things into gear and include "Does the person who jizzed get any say in the abortion?"

[pheoxs]

How can we have a real discussion without a MEGA thread

[suntan]

Third trimester it'll be a mega thread.

[max_boost]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Let's really kick things into gear and include "Does the person who jizzed get any say in the abortion?"

Yes she said she was on the pill and it would be safe lol

[davidI]

The Supreme Court of Canada already said everything I have to say, over 35 years ago.

Any infringement of the right to life, liberty and security of the person must comport with the principles of fundamental justice. These principles are to be found in the basic tenets of our legal system

...

...limits [to] the pregnant woman's access to abortion, violates her right to life, liberty and security of the person within the meaning of s. 7 of the Charter [of Rights and Freedoms] in a way which does not accord with the principles of fundamental justice. The right to "liberty" contained in s. 7 guarantees to every individual a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting his or her private life. Liberty in a free and democratic society does not require the state to approve such decisions but it does require the state to respect them. A woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy falls within this class of protected decisions. It is one that will have profound psychological, economic and social consequences for her. It is a decision that deeply reflects the way the woman thinks about herself and her relationship to others and to society at large. It is not just a medical decision; it is a profound social and ethical one as well. Section 251 of the Criminal Code takes a personal and private decision away from the woman and gives it to a committee which bases its decision on "criteria entirely unrelated to [the pregnant woman's] own priorities and aspirations".

Section 251 also deprives a pregnant woman of her right to security of the person under s. 7 of the Charter. This right protects both the physical and psychological integrity of the individual. Section 251 is more deeply flawed than just subjecting women to considerable emotional stress and unnecessary physical risk. It asserts that the woman's capacity to reproduce is to be subject, not to her own control, but to that of the state. This is a direct interference with the woman's physical "person".

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/sc...m/288/index.do

[zipdoa]

[ExtraSlow]

He's very out of fashion now, but I thought Scott Adams had an interesting idea that basically we should let the women figure this out, in public discussion, in crafting any legislation and in the courts.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

They perform them. They're just worried about radicals like you firebombing the clinics or harassing staff and such so when they're done in Canada they're performed in secrecy in rotating hospitals and by different doctors. Provincial governments prefer to just pay for them to go to the US to avoid dealing with you nutters.

And you want a libertarian state without laws or even basic rights and freedoms? You're describing anarchism - not liberalism.

Except I don't give a fuck about religion. I only care about protecting our basic freedoms from state interference. That's the whole contradiction that caused this trainwreck - Milei wants a hands-off liberal state except for religious social issues like abortion where the state dictates all. Do you think forced vaccination is a religious issue too?

Oh, @Misterman is quite correct, you are arguing this like a religious person. "Late term fetuses have no rights. Because the supreme court says so. The supreme court says so because because fetuses have no rights." It's precisely the same argument as: "Jesus is the son of god. Because the bible says so. The bible was written by [the disciples] of the son of god, so it must be true."

You just haven't through through all of these things to any sort of logical conclusion. You're doing amateur philosophy. People fall into these traps all of the time.

Example: you think that state interference is to be avoided as much as possible, ergo a woman has a right to choose an abortion up to full term. You think this because you believe that a fetus at any point in the term has no rights. Presumably you believe this because the supreme court has declared it. Two problems with your position: 1. You seem to think that rights are granted by the State and/or the courts. This is not exactly a liberal position, let alone a libertarian one - and frankly it's a big perplexing that you would even consider this a worthwhile argument. Rights are protected by the state, on occasion, but never granted by the state. 2. Your argument fails to make a useful argument about the inalienable rights of a fetus. This despite the fact that I doubt you would hold such views to the extremes, either. And if you suggest a 35 week abortion is something you would be okay with, then I frankly just call bullshit. You and I both know it, so let's abandon the charade that you would agree with a SC ruling which would enable a woman to have a 35 week abortion.

So we're left with the core of your juvenile and pointless argument: that the state should stand by while a pregnant woman infringes on the rights of a late term fetus. That, good sir, is closer to anarchy than anything I have suggested.

The actual adult conversation here, should you choose to actually engage in it - is at what point is it appropriate for the state to step in and protect the rights of a fetus. This requires you to consider that the SC may, on occasion, actually be wrong. That's probably a novel concept for a statist like yourself, but it would at least be intellectually healthy of you try.

[davidI]

LOL @Buster

Good luck repealing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms so that your crazy beliefs can be permitted in Canada.

I, for one, appreciate the protection the Charter grants us from our insane corrupt socialist overlords.

[vengie]

Maybe this is old school, or new school thinking (I actually don't know anymore).
But a bunch of dudes debating female body rights is no bueno in my mind.

At the end of the day. The right to choose is all that matters.

[Sugarphreak]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The actual adult conversation here, should you choose to actually engage in it - is at what point is it appropriate for the state to step in and protect the rights of a fetus.

I'd throw that argument out the door and just say the rights of the fetus are moot.

People have a right over their body, and that supersedes the rights of others that are dependent on it.

Just like a scenario where Person A needs a daily blood transfusion every day from Person B in order to stay alive, at any time Person B can say "fuck this" and refuse, thus leading to the death of Person A. It isn't that Person A doesn't have rights, they just don't have rights over another persons body.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

LOL @Buster

Good luck repealing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms so that your crazy beliefs can be permitted in Canada.

I, for one, appreciate the protection the Charter grants us from our insane corrupt socialist overlords.

It's interesting (and at this point unsurprising I suppose) that you don't have the ability to contemplate concepts outside of the framework of the Charter or the Canadian state, both of which you criticize regularly here.

Your simultaneous claims about the fallibility and the infallibility of the Canadian state are humorous. Pick a lane, as the kids say.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'd throw that argument out the door and just say the rights of the fetus are moot.

People have a right over their body, and that supersedes the rights of others that are dependent on it.

Just like a scenario where Person A needs a daily blood transfusion every day from Person B in order to stay alive, at any time Person B can say "fuck this" and refuse, thus leading to the death of Person A. It isn't that Person A doesn't have rights, they just don't have rights over another persons body.

Now we are getting somewhere. But you're demonstrably incorrect in your claim:

A person only has a right over their own body to the degree that their actions don't infringe on the rights of another person to not be harmed. This is why the viability argument is useful in abortion discussions, and why most reasonable people place the limits of their moral acceptance of abortion at or around viability. At what point does a mother's rights cease to supersede the rights of the fetus? Reasonable people disagree on this topic, which is why it is so interesting.

[max_boost]

lol i am lost in this thread

[davidI]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's interesting (and at this point unsurprising I suppose) that you don't have the ability to contemplate concepts outside of the framework of the Charter or the Canadian state, both of which you criticize regularly here.

Your simultaneous claims about the fallibility and the infallibility of the Canadian state are humorous. Pick a lane, as the kids say.

My biggest issues with Canada are the slow erosion of our freedoms and the increased involvement of Government in our lives.

So yes, I appreciate the Charter that sets limits on just how far the Government encroach on our life, liberty, and security.

You would hate the world in which you got the legal changes that would give the State the power to encroach on those fundamental freedoms, which is why it's so fucking hilarious watching you try to cut off your nose to spite your face over the foetus of women you'll never meet in your life, whose kids you'd probably despise if they were forced into society.