I agree with Tom that the fight against abortion is practically over. I accept that reality in the same way that I accept the reality of taxation.

As an anti-abortionist, I would like to address some of your questions, Smarter than Ezra, that you pose.
I will start with the most important one: “how far pro-life people were willing to put their dollars (or from a policy perspective, the tax dollars of Canadians)”
My answer is simply: nowhere. I am not willing to force Canadians to pay for anything. At the same time, if people want to have an abortion, they should pay for it themselves.
The rest of your questions effectively ask how far should a child’s life be subsidized. My answer again is simple: as far as the donor wants to subsidize. I do not believe any of it should be imposed on tax-payers at all.
I disagree with some of the inherent assumptions that you make. Specifically, you seem to suggest that a mother going to school is the key to a child’s financial success which, in turn, will translate to an improvement in the child’s welfare. I disagree. Once a child is already born, I think the child is better off with that mother at home. However, in general, I agree that pro-lifers should look beyond just the birth if they want to put their money where their mouths are.

Matthew,
Thank you for giving me some insight on what Birthright does. That would be a worthwhile charity for a pro-lifer to support. Philosophically, I think the “pricing the life of a child” is a false dilemma. At best, it is as valid as associating the cost of a child car-seat with the price of a child’s life.
My initial post #15 was a lot more complicated and convoluted. I wanted to suggest that the pro-lifers offer pregnant women all-expenses paid nine-month vacation cruises. I was afraid that my main point would get lost in a failed attempt at humor.

“Nuh-uh” Maybe that annoys you but in the political and legal world it’s really all that’s needed because the fight is over.

Irrespective of the philosophical objections, I have often said that pro-life people need to put their money where their mouths are. If they are indeed serious about saving the lives of the unborn, then supporting the mother to term is the very least they should offer. And while I am sure that the decision to terminate a pregnancy is about more than just money, lets explore the possibility that it could save a number of babies from this fate.

So then how far do you take it in order to be fair, to both society and the child? In fact, if pro-life people really put their money where their mouths are, then shouldn’t the idea of financial support be pushed a little further than just the term of the pregnancy, because, after all, shouldn’t the child then have the right to be raised by his/her biological mother? Furthermore, shouldn’t that child be brought up in the very best of circumstances in order to ensure the best outcomes under the circumstances? (Research demostrates that children who grow up in single income/low-income families tend to have poorer health / academic / financial outcomes.) For example, what about providing income support for the mother to up-grade her credentials in order to be able to financially support the child, free from 18 years of government assistance or minimum wage jobs where the support for the child may not be adequate? If the mother has not finished high school yet, that support should not be cut off as soon as she has finished high school, but shouldn’t it continue until she has finished postsecondary education? Furthermore, shouldn’t that support be augemented for girls whose parents kick them out of the house?

I would be interested to hear just how far pro-life people were willing to put their dollars (or from a policy perspective, the tax dollars of Canadians) in order to support the best outcomes for these children they want to save.

Again, neither pro-life or pro-choice here, but wanted to throw that in for debate.

If your goal is to change that framework, then it is absolutely NOT “moot” to discuss the legal frameworks, both statutory and case law history that is involved.

(* I apologize if this is a double post – the “spam trap” in wordpress decided to act oddly the first time I posted this response *)

If your goal is to change that framework, then it is absolutely NOT “moot” to discuss the legal frameworks, both statutory and case law history that is involved.

The man who pioneered Blood-Typing that saved millions of lives and made transfusions a common thing today ended up dying at a Hospital Emergency Room , the reason? , the Hospital was a Segragated one and refused him aid based on his colour .
Funny how good intentions can seal your fate to die one day or lose out on a good Education merely because of your Colour being used to help you become equal or stay unequal depending on your perspective.

Please don’t whine to me in 10 years when Gendercide Abortions morph into Homo-cide Abortion where the Mother has every RIGHT to choose and her Medical records are private so nobody will know the real reason for the Abortion if she doesn’t go public with being pregnant news to her friends.

After all, who would have thought back in the 60′s that one day an Ontario Leader would allow a Segragated Public Schools system for non-Whites under the Guise of helping them to meet the same standards as every other non-Black immigrant child that seems to do well with all the other races and religions.
Expect special-marked Subway cars for sensitive minorities that want to be with theirown kind and not the bigots that endorse Segragation , then buses will have special seats , Hospitals will cater to Minorities and become a two-tier system by Faith or Colour, Fire fighters and Police will have special areas to work for certian coloured people or language skill levels to be among theirown kind.

So sit back folks and watch how canada will finally have true equality and Justice one day so Those-People won’t have to sit next to Those-people who are bigots that won’t sit near Those Other People .

Okay, let’s put it in perspective. It’s a surgical procedure. ALL surgical procedures bear some degree of risk by definition.

The issue is not that surgery is necessarily “safe”, but that it is done above board so that its practitioners are accountable for their work. Drive it underground, and bad things happen all too easily.

You’re quite right, although the impression I get (and everyone in our reading audience is allowed to chip in on their own experience regarding this matter) is that the pro-abortive side argues as though legalized abortion eliminates any risk. As this type of surgery is not essential, any woman who undergoes the procedure must weigh the risks. If the risks are higher because of external factors, that too would weigh into the decision-making process — even on a civil level, you do the crime, expect to do the time, or consequences in this case as it were.

I have read the summary of R. v. Morgentaler, although I feel that reading the case is a moot point in this argument as my case is being presented in the court of public opinion. The fact is that everyone now seems to be under the impression that abortion should be legal in order to grant people rights to control their own bodily functions (I wish this were so since having to get up in the middle of a movie is very embarrassing!) Even if there weren’t a specific Charter clause that this case could be argued under, my goal is to see the proper legal framework created that would protect unborn children.

As for the rational decisions point of view, it is interesting admittedly, although I feel that we could find more than a few examples of people committing acts that they thought were perfectly suitable at the time but then later lived to regret or caused dire results. I appreciate your research and attempts to present this within the confines of the current legal framework, however it is my goal to change that very framework in the first place.

Okay, let’s put it in perspective. It’s a surgical procedure. ALL surgical procedures bear some degree of risk by definition.

The issue is not that surgery is necessarily “safe”, but that it is done above board so that its practitioners are accountable for their work. Drive it underground, and bad things happen all too easily.

“Safe” in this case means “as safe as reasonably possible” – as is true with any surgical procedure.

state the emotional arguments how how a woman has the right to control her own body’s functions (she doesn’t, otherwise women would have a legal right to be cured from cancer or at least to cosmetic surgery)

Oh please. Have you even read R. v. Morgentaler?

To be precise, R. v. Morgentaler did not establish any right per se. It did, however, make it extremely difficult to render a medical procedure illegal by being based on the provisions regarding “Security of the Person” in the Charter. As long as the patient has consented (in the generally understood sense of “informed consent”), there is no crime.

Mysteriously, R. v. Morgentaler DOES reinforce the notion that a woman is perfectly capable of making rational decisions regarding her body, regardless of whether she is pregnant or not, as it is based on the basic concepts of “Security of the Person” AND “Informed Consent”.

In other words, you would have to demonstrate that not only did the doctor not inform the patient adequately about the procedure, but that the woman was legally incompetent at the time.

Unlike you, of course, when you state:”…how a woman has the right to control her own body’s functions (she doesn’t, otherwise women would have a legal right to be cured from cancer or at least to cosmetic surgery)…”

Come on, Matthew.

You’re right though Charles Anthony that they’re playing fast and loose with the word right.

I wonder where she got those statistics? It is difficult to find any stats on abortions in Canada.

Dr. Morgentaler has fought province by province to ensure that the legal right to abortion is supported by medicare.

Such a bizarre concept, I would say…
If medicare is scrapped or goes bankrupt, this “right” to abortion disappears.