I would need to know more about what a "non-medical late term abortion" actually looks like. If someone is at 8-months gestation, then abortion (termination of pregnancy) can occur without termination of fetal life.

i'm no doctor, but i'd say any early delivery of the baby is obviously a-ok. i have a c-section daughter, so im very pro c-section. and any case where the babies life is already terminated or baby is braindead etc qualifies as protected. same goes for baby seems ok but mother's life is direly at risk. i'm speaking more to pure choice abortions at 8+ months, just seems like a common sense restriction.

What I'm getting at though is whether it needs to be 'restricted' (ie. banned) v. the option is induced delivery or c-section under such circumstances.

my point is it shouldn't legally be an option, given there are alternative. 8 months prior to make that choice, or delivery/c-section if medical reasons arise. even then i open the door for a doctor to suggest an abortion if there are no other options.

i am all for the choice of a woman to abort a baby, i dont like it but its not my body or my baby or my life. it's hers. i just dont like the idea that it's a blank check up to the due date.

the argument of killing a non-sentient clump of cells is a strong one for me, its the ending of a human life but more akin to unplugging a braindead coma patient. once that baby is near full term tho it's an entirely different situation.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jul 10 2023 11:32am

In Ontario your first 3 are free

fuck universal health care is awesome

As stated in OP the law is left intentionally vague to allow a doctor to sign off on this for arguably any reason. As stated in the other ongoing conversation there are alternatives to killing the baby.

So I repeat the question. You truly believe conservatives are against abortion because they wish to increase the population in order to force religion on a larger number of people?


You literally said this. I would like a response.

This post was edited by YeeHaw on Jul 10 2023 11:43am

1.You have consentual sex.
2. You don't use protection.
3. You become pregnant.
4. You kill a living being for not paying attention at 1-3.

It doesn't sound like an accident to me. I didn't mention the medical complexity which can be caused by an abortion at late stage or just by chance. A woman can become unable to bear children anymore or develop cancer years later. Abortions aren't harmless at all. You need policies to discourage people from the practice. Discouraging costs less, is morally superiot and changes behavior at the core of the problem (people not using protection during the seggs). I also think, as a side effect you're going to register less std.

Imagine, you and your wife want a kid. Her uterus is so damaged after 3x abortion that she can't bear children no more. Would you still be pro 3x free abortion?
To give you an idea, the baby is literally cut in pieces and taken out piece by piece from the uterus during abortion.

This post was edited by babun1024 on Jul 10 2023 12:07pm

None of this changes the original point that an insurance system based off of subjective definitions of personal responsibility is unlikely to succeed.

Also, abortions are overwhelmingly safe and complications are rare.

This post was edited by Handcuffs on Jul 10 2023 12:07pm