Conference kaosws::canada

    I support the fact that abortion should not be used as another or
    alternate form of birth-control, but I still support the right for
    a woman to determine her own destiny. I do not think that it is
    right for people to force their thoughts and ideas onto others,
    as the pro-lifers are doing and that Reverend whatever his name
    is.
    I think that the Supreme Court ruling is a wonderful step in the
    right direction for woman's rights.
    
    
    /aryeh.

    Aryeh:
    
    Agreed, women do have the right to determine her own destiny as
    do we all. However, when her decision affects the life of another,
    she is no longer only affecting her life but that of her child too!
                          
    Would you say that I have the right to live my life as I want, so
    now I can go and kill John Doe because I want to? No, probably not,
    but this is not far different from what "some" abortions are.
    
    Ron :^|

re: .1
>    I support the fact that abortion should not be used as another or
>    alternate form of birth-control, but I still support the right for
>    a woman to determine her own destiny.

Unfortunately, all too often abortion IS used as a form of birth control.  Why
don't these women who are determining their own destinies make the determination
BEFORE-HAND that they don't want a pregnancy?

Granted, if there are extenuating circumstances, such as a pregnancy resulting
from incest or rape, than an abortion may be considered an acceptable
alternative to carrying to full term.  Here in the States, too often abortion
has come to be almost as accepted and taken for granted as exchanging a garment
simply because "Well, it just isn't what I wanted.".

>                                    I do not think that it is
>    right for people to force their thoughts and ideas onto others,
>    as the pro-lifers are doing and that Reverend whatever his name
>    is.

Do you think it is right to force your thoughts and ideas onto a viable fetus
who doesn't possess the ability to stand up for any rights?

>    I think that the Supreme Court ruling is a wonderful step in the
>    right direction for woman's rights.
    
What ever happened to "human" rights?

Sorry, I don't mean to get on your case, but I think there's more to it than
"three cheers for women".

Kip

    I wasn't insinuating 3 cheers for woman i was just cheering the fact
    that woman do have the right to determine their own destinies.
    
    Of course every one has a valid argument and nobody is right or
    wrong, and there are many people who have religious beliefs, I am
    just saying that the government should not have control over my
    rights as a human being.
    The arguments about murder of the fetus can be argued until the
    cows come home.
    This whole concept of legalised abortion means that legalised clinics
    can be set up, and a woman doesn't have to wait until some committee
    at a hospital plays God at deciding whether or not she can have
    an abortion. Don't misunderstand the meaning of my entry.

    maybe we should hear from the people that this argument really applies
    to, WOMEN.
    By the way, it is alot easier to discuss this in person Ron, than
    trying to type in my ideas. Maybe over coffee one day eh!

    Re: .3
    
    A good point. I do agree there can be abortions for certain reasons
    (ie: rape). Just like I agree there can be murder for certain reasons
    (ie: death penalty). But I know that given the right women will
    have abortions in the place of birth control.
    
    My wife knows of a girl in Chicago that has had 3 ABORTIONS! Why,
    because she and her boyfriend are too stupid to practice safe sex.
    
    Don't get me wrong, I am not comming down on women for having unwanted
    babies, I do realize it takes two to tangle, but come on....3
    abortions.
    
    I guess what I'm trying to say is that abortions will be used as
    brith control, more babies will die because some people just can't
    be mature enough to accept the responsibility of having a child.
    
    Dr. Morgantiler (sp?) just made it that much easier.
    
    Ron.
    
    Aryeh, sure lets do discuss this over a coffee, but it may carry
    into lunch and dinner.....
    
    ps. you buying?

    Is right to life the same as right to die? Is abortion the same
    as murder?
    
    We all have a position that may take a whole lot of time and space
    to cover. It is no win for those who is in pain and those who are
    affected by an unwanted pregnancy.
    
    RE: .6
    
    coffee/lunch/coffee/dinner/breakfast/etc. good luck resolving it
    all.
    
    /cal hoe

    I think you'll find that for the majority of women who have had
    abortions, it is not something they would ever do again. It is
    psychologically stressful and in some cases devasting. Few thinking
    women ever take "chances" again after going thru it once.   
    
    Certainly there are those who do use abortion as a form of birth
    control, but believe me, these are definitely in the minority. One
    must also consider the sociological and economic impact on prohibiting
    women from access to safe abortion facilities. Rare is it the rich
    women who suffers. Rather it is the poor, undereducated women who
    can't afford to go to a US border town. The cycle of poverty and 
    the reliance on the welfare system continues. BTW studies show
    conclusively that children born of teenage mothers are more likely
    to require more medical intervention during their infancy and toddler
    years, are more likely to be undernourished, are more likely to
    become teenage parents themselves.
    
    As a founding member of National Association of Women and the Law
    (NAWL), I applaud this long overdue decision. I don't think I
    personnally could go thru an abortion, but I think every women deserves
    the right to be free to choose when and whether to become a mother.
    Carol
    

                                                                  
>        As a founding member of National Association of Women and the Law
>    (NAWL), I applaud this long overdue decision. I don't think I
>    personnally could go thru an abortion, but I think every women deserves
>    the right to be free to choose when and whether to become a mother.
>    Carol

    Again it brings back the question...is it the womens choice of her
    body or the womens choice over the baby's body?
    
    Ron.
    
    PS. Just read in the paper that abortion will be paid for by OHIP
    (Ontario Health Insurance Plan). 

    
    
    Like others in this note, I feel that abortion is wrong.  I absolutely
    and positively believe that it is murder.  However, if they are
    going to allow abortions, women should be given safe places with
    trained physicians and counselors to perform the operation.  Nobody
    should have to go to a butcher.  This is a big issue in the US right
    now too.  They are trying to pass a new law that would prohibit
    federal funding of Planned Parenthood agency if they perform abortions.
    Now I think this is a great idea.  The people of the US never voted
    on abortion being legal.  It was decided by 12 judges.  I agree
    that the government shouldn't have the control over an individual's
    right (unless it interferes with another person's rights - but that's
    another agruement), but I don't think that my tax money should have
    to pay for another woman's abortion.  If the private sector wants
    abortions, let them pay for it!
    
    As for unwanted pregnancies, this is a real difficult issue for
    me.  There are thousands of people out there on adoption lists who
    are being told they will have to wait at least 5 years.  Someone
    should be working this angle more, and I'm not talking on the
    black market.  There should be more focus on legal adoption agencies 
    and women with unwanted children getting together.
    
    Teenage pregnancy - Carol stated the facts on problems with teen
    pregnancies correctly.  I do think that the parents, churches, schools,
    and public service should really being pushing the message of
    abstinence.  There are so many dangers out there today and kids
    have this feeling of immortality.  We need to point out the facts
    to them, all of us.  There is also this "fad" with kids today that
    it's cool to have babies.  It's the "in" thing to do right now.
    We need to change this message.  I know a teenage girl who is going
    through this right now, and I feel bad for her and for the child.
    
    As for women having the right to choose motherhood, I agree with Kip, 
    choose beforehand!

    
    					Jill

   	Unfortunately, unwanted children end up being more of a drain
    on our tax dollars than abortions. One of the reasons that child
    abuse is on the rise is that more young people having babies
    are ill-equipped to  deal with the strains of parenthood. 
    
    	If one cannot accept the morality of abortion on demand, how
    can one accept the untold abuses many of these children have to
    experience. Also social workers are very reluctant to remove a child
    from the family home unless the kid is "at risk". One reason is
    that foster homes are few and most kids stay a few months at a time.
    As far as I know, it is still very difficult to remove a child from
    his 'biological family' and put him up for adoption. Those that
    are permanently removed have a difficult time being placed.	   
    
    	I know many people will contend that this doesn't make abortion
    right. Sometimes one has to choose between two "evils".
    
    Carol
    

    
    
    "Every child should be a wanted child" OR WHAT, we kill them.  Seems
    a bit radical to me.  I'm not concerned with the strain of unwanted
    children on my tax dollars, I'm concerned with the children themselves.
    I don't see it as a choice between 2 evils.  Giving a child a chance
    at life is not evil.  Granted with children now having children
    of their own, there are added risks, but it doesn't necessarily mean 
    that the child is going to be abused.  All of us ask people to believe
    in us, and to give us a chance in this world, why are you so willing 
    to shut the door on these children?   I would rather have my money go 
    towards making a better life for these kids, rather than not giving 
    them a chance at all.   It is harder to place older kids once they've 
    been through a bad family life, but maybe we need to work on fixing
    these problems before they happen.   
    
    As for women on welfare, they are provided with condoms FREE and trained
    in the issues of family planning at their own learning level, so how
    is it that they are the group that suffers the most?  The children
    who are not being given any choice and who are going through immense
    pain when they are aborted are the ones who are suffering.     

    Wait a minute Jill, we laid the ground work with the sexual freedom
    of the sixties and now you think that we can patch the ideas with
    "just say no". 
    
    /cal hoe
    
    BTW I am glad that there's another voice from Colorado.

	First of all, the argument assumes that a fetus is a child from
    the moment of conception and I for one am not willing to accept
    that argument. I don't think I can try and convince others of what
    I believe  and besides, I think they should have the freedom to
    choose what they will believe. SO it is a matter of choice. I believe
    that a fetus is a viable life after 16 weeks. That is my belief.     
    And because of that belief, I feel I should have the right to choose
    whether I will continue a pregnancy or not.  (As I said earlier,
    I personally could not do it but then I am not in the position of
    so many young women.) 
    
    	I am also glad to see that you are willing to bear the increase
    in tax dollars. Unfortunately you 're in the minority.  How come
    all these people who lobby government for reductions in spending
    on planned parenthood, abortion clinics and sex education aren't
    out there lobbying for the government to increase funding 
    for the homeless, the elderly and improving welfare conditions.
    More than 65% of the people on welfare are women. Of these, over
    70% are single mothers. I have a friend who is a social worker in
    Chicago. A few years ago, the city reduced the abortion clinics
    making it extremely d{fficult to obtain an abortion.  Young girls
    were having two and three babies before they were 20 because as
    she said, "once you're stuck at home with the kid, the only way to increase
    your income is to have more kids."        
    
    	Maybe Colorado is heaven, but for an unwanted, homeless child 
    on the streets of New York, life is hell.  I'm not trying to be
    flip, but every day I come into Pennsylvania Station and see the
    kids picking thru garbage cans or trying to sell themselves and
    I get sick. I'm just saying that every child deserves a chance to
    be happy and free to grow up. Its a selfish society, in my opinion,
    that makes the children pay to keep its high sense of morality intact.
    
      	BTW, I at one time wanted to be a social worker up in Canada, where
    welfare system is a lot more fruitful; not perfect, but it helps. 
    I couldn't stand the pain of the children with whom I was  working.
    My first experience was with a five year old whose mother drank and
    whose lovers abused her.  It took us five months to get an Article
    15 allowing us to remove her from the house.  She was placed in
    a group home for a few months and there after went to live in a foster
    home.
    
    Carol
    
    

Sorry, but I really don't think the issue is how many kids there are around the
world without a home, or live in a slum with a single, negligent parent, or are
born to teenaged mothers, or are in some way physically or emotionally abused.
The fact is, you will *always* have these children, regardless.

The argument to abort a so-called unwanted pregancy to try to alleviate the
strain placed on this or any society simply because they may have to grow up in
less-than-favorable conditions is hollow at best.  Give life a chance.  How
many poverty-stricken people throughout the world since the beginning of time
have risen to greatness?  Countless numbers.  How many "legal" abortions have
been performed in the U.S. since 1974?  Over 27 million......................
.....more than have been killed in ALL the wars the U.S. has been involved in
since the Pilgrims landed.

As far as the sexual revolution of the sixties is concerned, yes, we opened up
a can of worms with that one.  Still, I don't think that has anything to do
with educating the young people of today that abstinence is still the best way
to go.  The argument that teens are going to have sex regardless of whether or
not we approve is, again, hollow at best.  Handing out free condoms at school
is just another way of saying "Yeah, we approve of your having sex.  We just
want it to be "safe" sex - i.e., no venereal diseases, no unwanted pregnancies,
no AIDS, no embarrssment, etc."  The bottom line is, our society (meaning
Western) has become FAR TOO permissive with what we tend to tolerate among our
young with the antiquated idea that if we stifle them, they'll either resent us
and do it anyway and become (legal) outlaws, or they'll somehow be left behind
the rest of the population by not being allowed to practice being adults.  We
need to set a good example, and I just don't think legalizing abortions is the
way to go.

Nancy Reagan's slogun of "Just Say No" (to drugs) is really rather simplistic
because it doesn't deal with the issue of peer pressure, which we all know is
tremendous during those developing years, and probably wouldn't have much of
an impact on today's "sexually active" young, or those contemplating engaging
in sex.  We need to educate the young to realize that some things just aren't
allowed.  We need to discourage them from assuming that if adults do it, then
they should be allowed to do it as well.  It just doesn't, and can't, work that
way.

The legalization of abortion, where any woman can have her unwanted pregnancy
discontinued because of poor planning (or lack of same); where a teenaged girl
can have an abortion NOT ONLY without her parents consent but WITHOUT THEIR
KNOWLEDGE! AS WELL (in the U.S., as far as I know, this is still being
contested as to whether she has a legal "right" under the Constitution); where
government money is (sometimes) spent to rid society of potential welfare
recipients; where, as has been mentioned, there are many couples unable to
bear their own and families who would gladly take in another mouth to feed but
are stripped of an opportunity because of a selfish act, is indeed a sad state
of affairs.

Kip

    
    KIP!   KIP!    KIP!    KIP!    Goooooooo  KIP!
    
    Actually what I found interesting in the US decision on abortion,
    and it may well be the same in Canada, is that the Supreme Court
    decided from all the *evidence* that the fetus was a life from the 
    moment of conception, yet they still went on to approve abortions.

    Carol, I won't argue with you about the fetus being a *viable* life
    at the moment of conception.  There is no chance that the
    fetus could survive on it's own at this stage.  However that does not
    mean that it's not a living being, it just needs help to survive
    at this point.  Also, as far as addition tax burden, there would
    be none.  I'm talking about cutting federally funded abortions,
    and funneling that money into programs for these unwanted, abused,
    homeless children that you keep talking about.  I just don't want
    my hard-earned dollars going for murder. 
    
    Actually, I have a theory about abortions.  Send all the people
    that believe that abortions aren't murder go see one.  I really
    doubt that many of them would feel the same afterwards.   Or try
    this, have someone hold an extremely powerful vaccuum to your arm
    till it is ripped from your body, and tell me how it feels.  
    
    As for welfare, it shouldn't allow people to become that dependent,
    and it shouldn't reward women who have babies.  Make them get out
    there and work for their money.  
    
                   But for now back to the issue at hand, we've
                   strayed too much.....
    
    
    						Jill

>      I'm talking about cutting federally funded abortions,
>    and funneling that money into programs for these unwanted, abused,
>    homeless children that you keep talking about.  I just don't want
>    my hard-earned dollars going for murder. 
            
 Exactly! I always thought that doctors took an oath about never taking
    life. Well those doctors that do abortions are hyporcyites. What
    really made me mad was to see Dr. Morgantiler, after winning the
    supreme court decision, holding his 2 month old baby. How can the
    man still do abortions after having a child. Doesn't he know now
    what he is doing! I thought it would change his ways. I guess not.
    
    Ron.

    Perfect morality (anti-abortion) hardly works in a world that is
    at best imperfect and at worse chaotic.
    
    It would be really nice if we did not have to deal with the abortion
    issue.  It would be really nice if no one had to be on welfare.
    It would really be nice if every child had a home where they would
    be fed, clothed, and loved.  It would be nice if we didn't have
    to depend on birth control.
    
    However, that is not the case.
    
    There are too many people who are born into situations where they
    are stuck at the bottom for the rest of their lives, with no hope
    in sight.  No amount of morality will compensate them for the grief
    that they will have to suffer for having no home, no clothes, no
    food, no education.  We do not have the resources to take care of
    them all.
    
    Some people make a big deal about the rights of future people. 
    Some of those same people ignore reality after those people are
    born.  What do we do to give each person a chance at a good life?
    Individually, we can't do much.  Even collectively, we can't do
    much.  It is sadistic to bring children into a life where there
    is no hope, especially if they're just going to be "another dependent".
    
    Concentrating on improving living conditions would help, because
    the high-birth rate is a symptom of how well off society is.  China
    and India have the largest populations in the world.  They also
    have some of the worst poverty in the world.  Alot of children are dying
    over there from malnutrition, exposure, and disease.  Shouldn't
    those LIVING children take priority?

    Just so you understand where I'm coming from, I don't like the idea
    of abortion, really; however, I understand that I don't have the
    right to inflict my beliefs on other people.

    RE .17
    
    A parallel to the ABORTION by doctors issue is the DEATH BY LETHAL
    INJECTION issue here in the states. Medical practioneers are not
    under the oath as the doctors but their charter is to save lives;
    not take it.
    
    The main issue is that a few folks had redefined where life begins
    and end in order to suite their own beliefs; then again, the issue
    wages on where government can define the beginning and end of life.
    
    Just some issues to ponder.
    
    /cal hoe 

    You know, in all the fervor and excitement, I forgot to ask on what
    grounds the court ruled the existing legislation 'unconstitutional'.
    If someone could briefly provide the majority opinion, I would be
    most grateful. (Somehow I can't imagine it on the basis of the new
    Charter of Rights although I do recall a battle over the wording
    of the first article with reference to "every one" versus "every
    person").
    
    Carol
    

It wasn't too long ago that abortion was a word seldom spoken.  Unthinkable.
Today, we think nothing of hearing the word, never mind it's accompanying
implications.  How did legalization begin?  Was it a means to alleviate the
burden of bearing an undesirable pregnancy - as in, one resulting from rape,
incest, etc?  (To me, this is not the same as an "unwanted pregnancy" - as in,
didn't-use-any-precautions-before-engaging-in-sex.)  It may have begun with all
good intentions, but now we see women rejoicing over their legal right to rid
themselves of so called "unwanted pregnancies".  On the surface, abortion may
seem like a good idea and it may even have some redeeming social qualities.  To
some, it may be seen as simply the granting to women their God-given right of
control of their own bodies.  But, could this "right" ever be abused?

In the news recently, there is talk going on about the controversial practice
of euthanasia.  Are there instances where this might be a viable solution to
alleviate a person's pain and discomfort, especially in one who is terminally
ill?  I would have to answer this question with Yes.  However, might there be
times when this practice could be used against an individual?  History shows us
that people will do unspeakable things to other human beings when it serves
their best interests to do so.  On the surface, it sounds like an option that
perhaps should be available to physicians.  But what about the potential to
abuse it and use it indiscriminately?  Could this ever happen?

Now, I read in the Boston Globe that there is talk of sterilizing retarded
people to prevent them from procreating.  On the surface, this may appear to be
a good thing.  After all, how can retarded individuals, especially those who
are severely mentally handicapped, rear a child that neither one of them can
relate to?  They can't of course.  But how does a law (if enacted) such as this
affect their individual civil rights, as granted by the U.S. Constitution?  Are
there people with borderline mental deficiencies (what ever *that* means)?
Who's to say who is and who isn't capable of faithfully bringing up children?
Could this 'law' (if enacted) ever be abused?

How does all this relate to 'abortion in Canada'?  My point is, that one thing
ultimately leads to another and when the government takes it upon itself to
decide "who shall procreate and who shall not", or "who shall bring their
pregnancy to full term and who shall not", or possibly "who shall live and who
shall die", is one thing that scares me more than anything else in this world.
I'm not paranoid, but I feel there is a trend happening, and I don't like it.

Just a couple of generations ago the Nazis were doing this very same thing,
and they did it all "legally" under the veil of ridding their society (and
eventually the entire world) of all the undesirables, all those who were either
a burden on their society or those whom they determined to be unnecessary, and
those who were considered a thorn in their side.  Are we headed in this very
same direction today, though under a different veil?

Heaven forbid we should even imply that we are doing anything approaching
immorality; we are merely protecting ourselves and future generations by
ridding the world of potential burdens to our "free and wholly democratic
societies".  Only, we are doing so under the pretense of love for our fellow
human beings.

Thank you for taking the time to read all this.

Kip

    Kip, 
    How could you even imply that the current government position on
    abortion is equivalent to the Nzi systematic elimination of unwanted
    human. There is a big difference between what went on then and the
    

re: .22 < IRT::RIZZO >
>    Kip, 
>    How could you even imply that the current government position on
>    abortion is equivalent to the Nzi systematic elimination of unwanted
>    human. There is a big difference between what went on then and the
    
You apparently didn't get a chance to finish your reply, but I'll jump in here
anyway.

Read my entry again.  Nowhere did I imply that 'the current government position
on abortion is equivalent to the Nzi systematic elimination of unwanted human.'
I said, essentially, that I fear we are heading in a "similar" direction.

Anytime you legalize the elimination of even basic human rights by allowing the
government to pass impersonal, degrading laws that hinder the free choice of
individuals (whether they are alive today or might be tomorrow), you are moving
toward omnipotent control by the government, which is contrary to both our
Constitutions - the U.S., as well as Canada.

The first step was legalizing abortion; the rest will surely follow.

Thank you for your reply.

Kip