Discuss, and let's fight... :)

I'm sure some can guess my stance on this, but let's kick the hornet's nest...

Morgentaler abortion clinic in Fredericton to close - New Brunswick - CBC News

Mark
«13456

Comments

  • I'll bite . . . It's a private business. I do not want tax dollars going to prop this place up any more than I wanted my tax dollars bailing out GM or Chrysler. My opinions on abortion are not relevant in this instance. Purely an economic decision . . . the Government should not be picking winners and losers in the business sphere.

    It's also bad for business when you provide your services free of charge to some of your clients. Wish I could find a Morgentaler-like business to do my driveway.

    With respect to the legal issues pertaining to abortion in New Brunswick, the supporters of this clinic have every right to try and change the laws so that the clinic will get government funding. Obviously they have met with zero success on that front to date.
  • Excellent...

    If we want to discount outdated and unsubstantiated arguments... this helps my side by far.

    Abortion ProCon.org

    Basically eliminated the "con" points number 1, 2, 4, 5, and 12. Further, points 3 and 14 seem to be up for debate, and your assertion that this clinic was providing free service clearly negates 11.

    My point is that this is the only abortion clinic available for non-medically necessary abortions in the province. Now two medical references is the only option? This is Canada! Abortions are legal, they are accessed, they are beneficial. And again, the "face" of the people saying the closure is good is Peter Ryan, another (generously given) middle aged male who's touting from the rooftops that god has won the day... and prayers are being answered.

    Despicable.

    Mark
  • Its usually the poor and the uneducated that will be hurt the most by this. The ones who struggle and then are 16 and pregnant, the ones in that area get completely fucked by the gov't. Its a problem that has a solution and its being eliminated... classic canada.


    the comments below in the article make me want to stab people, its mind boggling how retarded the average person is. Im more sickened by the people who think they can completely decide incredibly personal choices of women, ignorant fucks like that bible thumping scumbag peter ryan.
  • i'm pro choice and i think that abortions should be available to the public. i also think that it is a medical health issue (and not "just a business issue") and therefore the government should fund the bill.

    however, i don't agree with people who use abortion clinics as birth control. you are allowed to have one abortion or maybe even two depending on the circumstances. any more than that though, you should have to pay out of your own pocket (unless rape is involved, but how many women are getting raped and impregnated three or more times really).

    on the other hand though, i am also a strong believer in accepting the consequences of your actions. for some reason, and i've never been able to figure out why, most people don't feel that children (a possible consequence of sexual intercourse) is not a valid consequence that they have to accept. i'm all for pro-choice, but i'd most likely be very upset if i was the one having to give up my child.

    specifically for BC, i think it is horrendous that there isn't a clinic available for women. the fact that only 2 hospitals can conduct abortions and only if..
    a woman gets approval from two doctors who certify the procedure is 'medically necessary.'

    is absolutely terrible imho. this is blatantly taking rights away from women.

    also, not surprised in the least that the idiot leading the charge is a rich, white male.
  • This...

    MYTH: Women are using abortion as a method of birth control.
    In fact, half of all women getting abortions report that contraception was used during the month they became pregnant.1 Some of these couples had used the method improperly; some had forgotten or neglected to use it on the particular occasion they conceived; and some had used a contraceptive that failed. No contraceptive method prevents pregnancy 100% of the time.

    If abortion were used as a primary method of birth control, a typical woman would have at least two or three pregnancies per year - 30 or more during her lifetime. In fact, most women who have abortions have had no previous abortions (52%) or only one previous abortion (26%).5 Considering that most women are fertile for over 30 years, and that birth control is not perfect, the likelihood of having one or two unintended pregnancies is very high.

    Mark
  • DrTyore wrote: »
    MYTH: Women are using abortion as a method of birth control.
    In fact, half of all women getting abortions report that contraception was used during the month they became pregnant.1 Some of these couples had used the method improperly; some had forgotten or neglected to use it on the particular occasion they conceived; and some had used a contraceptive that failed. No contraceptive method prevents pregnancy 100% of the time.

    that's very interesting. however, they could be lying to the clinic obviously. it's probably just considered a little, white lie to them, but it's a lot easier on their self esteem as opposed to them saying "fuck no i never use birth control. i'm a true whore who doesn't give a fuck!" also, birth control pills are expensive and not everyone can afford them.

    also, i'm no expert on statistics, but the quotation does say that half (i.e. 50%) used birth control. doesn't that seem to suggest that the other 50% are using abortion as birth control? or at least some of that percentage? i'm assuming the other 50% aren't all rape victims.

    again though, i think at some point you have to accept some consequences for your actions. you do realize that you don't have to have penis in vagina sex to get off and have fun, right?

    furthermore, the simple fact that birth control has pretty much always been the responsibility of the female just shows how stupid men are when it comes to this debate. men are responsible for their actions and said consequences as well, even if we aren't popping out the kid. why are no companies researching and producing birth control pills for men? why are we only attempting to fuck up and mess around with women's natural biological processes?

    sorry. systematic and systemic oppression tends to get me a little riled up sometimes.
  • Personally...

    The "using it as birth control" doesn't much hold water for me either. I think abortion is legal, as it should be, and needs to be accessible. Who the fuck are you (not YOU you, the communal you) to say what someone should or should not consider a viable reason for an abortion? And it hardly matters anyway, since if you suddenly say "no abortions for people that don't use contraception" just means all the stats will say faulty contraception from here on out.

    Should people trend towards condoms / pills / injections / IUD / etc. etc.? Absolutely. Do they? No. Should this mean they now must have a kid, specifically one they do not want / cannot support? I'd bet my tax dollars on the abortion still being the cheaper option as a whole. Bottom line is, abortions, and the debate around their legality / morality / accessibility tends to boil down to what some people think is moral, and what some people don't think is moral (for religious or non religious reasoning). And that, frankly, is a personal decision that you make for yourself, and kindly fuck right off with regards to me and mine.

    If Peter Ryan there is so against abortion, he's more than welcome not to have one.

    Mark
  • I am not going to argue the merits or (im)morality surrounding the abortion debate in this thread. This is simple economics . . .

    I have stated previously that Morgentaler's primary concern in his abortion crusade was a monetary one. It seems likely that the only way this clinic stayed afloat while he lived is that he subsidized it's operation with profits from his other clinics in other provinces. Otherwise, we would have been at this point long ago.
    Apparently, the current operators are not willing to follow in the footsteps of the previous owner. Or, Morgentaler did not bequeath any of his wealth to the continued operation of his clinics after his death. Thus we find ourselves with the NB clinic crying poor, and wanting a bail-out (of sorts) from the government. To this I say no . . . for the reasons given in my initial post. Just as it is not government's job to reach into my pocket to subsidize private car manufacturers, it is not their job to subsidize private medical facilities, either.

    By all means, work to change the law if that is what you want to do, or donate money to keep this clinic open. But keep your hands out of the taxpayer's wallet until the laws are changed.


    As an aside, it is interesting to me that those who would ordinarily protest the loudest about "two-tiered" medicine and the death of our Health System when someone mentions private care for things like MRIs, are oddly silent about the operation of a privately run, for profit abortion clinic.
  • DrTyore wrote: »
    Personally...

    The "using it as birth control" doesn't much hold water for me either. I think abortion is legal, as it should be, and needs to be accessible. Who the fuck are you (not YOU you, the communal you) to say what someone should or should not consider a viable reason for an abortion? And it hardly matters anyway, since if you suddenly say "no abortions for people that don't use contraception" just means all the stats will say faulty contraception from here on out.

    The fact that the people of New Brunswick fund the medical system in that province, as we do in ours, gives them a say in what and how services are provided. That is how things work in this country. As I said, change the laws in NB if you wish but, at present, this is the reality.

    Should people trend towards condoms / pills / injections / IUD / etc. etc.? Absolutely. Do they? No. Should this mean they now must have a kid, specifically one they do not want / cannot support? I'd bet my tax dollars on the abortion still being the cheaper option as a whole. Bottom line is, abortions, and the debate around their legality / morality / accessibility tends to boil down to what some people think is moral, and what some people don't think is moral (for religious or non religious reasoning). And that, frankly, is a personal decision that you make for yourself, and kindly fuck right off with regards to me and mine.

    Okay, but when your "personal decision" impacts others, in however small a manner, then they have some right to comment, no? Perhaps I resent tax dollars going to abortions, while I am out of pocket for my PSA screenings (where is the concern about "poor" guys avoiding the test because they cannot afford it?)
    If Peter Ryan there is so against abortion, he's more than welcome not to have one.

    Mark

    And if a couple is so stupid as to have sex without taking every precaution against an unwanted pregnancy, then they are perfectly welcome to pay for the abortion themselves.

    I think trigs is onto something . . . three strikes and you pay the freight.
  • I started to agree with Milo, and the whole economics of the clinic. If the need was that great, the clinic would be open, and making money.

    However, what is the economic cost of an unwanted child ? Typically, they are from poor, single mother homes, who may be on government assistance and now so will the child. Then the cycle repeats itself when the unwanted child becomes of age as that is the only life they known.

    Whereas, an abortion stops the cycle before it starts.

    After all that, I still think adoption should be the first option for an unwanted pregnancy. If it weren't for that, I wouldn't be here.
  • For the record, the waitlist of prospective adoptive parents is over 2 years long. There is no lack of willing parents out there to take an unwanted child, and that my friends, doesnt cost the government anything.
  • Milo wrote: »
    I am not going to argue the merits or (im)morality surrounding the abortion debate in this thread. This is simple economics . . .

    I have stated previously that Morgentaler's primary concern in his abortion crusade was a monetary one. It seems likely that the only way this clinic stayed afloat while he lived is that he subsidized it's operation with profits from his other clinics in other provinces. Otherwise, we would have been at this point long ago.
    Apparently, the current operators are not willing to follow in the footsteps of the previous owner. Or, Morgentaler did not bequeath any of his wealth to the continued operation of his clinics after his death. Thus we find ourselves with the NB clinic crying poor, and wanting a bail-out (of sorts) from the government. To this I say no . . . for the reasons given in my initial post. Just as it is not government's job to reach into my pocket to subsidize private car manufacturers, it is not their job to subsidize private medical facilities, either.

    By all means, work to change the law if that is what you want to do, or donate money to keep this clinic open. But keep your hands out of the taxpayer's wallet until the laws are changed.


    As an aside, it is interesting to me that those who would ordinarily protest the loudest about "two-tiered" medicine and the death of our Health System when someone mentions private care for things like MRIs, are oddly silent about the operation of a privately run, for profit abortion clinic.

    You and your accusations of monetary drive are clearly questionable at this point...

    He ran this, at a deficit, for years. And the want to make money and help provide much needed resources for people aren't mutually exclusive.. but you know, demonize away since you were his personal accountant.

    This isn't a matter of 2-tier medical, it's a matter of passive misogyny. "Well, there's still abortion if, you know, it's necessary as deemed by medical professionals" is still "oh, silly girl, you got pregnant? Well, I hope you learn from this mistake as you rear an unwanted child - do be sure to not cock it up despite your likely unsuited situation".

    Further, fuck the money argument moreso. You know what? There's too many people on the planet, and I for one don't much care if everyone 1000 years from now isn't the same heritage as me, so fuck the baby bonus... you wanted to have a kid, you foot the bill. I never want a kid, but my tax money is going to every kid - wanted or not - in some regard or another. I'd rather it go to abortion, but when I say "Hey, you wanted to be a parent, you should be able to do it on your own", I get dirty stares from you fucking breeders.

    Mark
  • Milo wrote: »
    And if a couple is so stupid as to have sex without taking every precaution against an unwanted pregnancy, then they are perfectly welcome to pay for the abortion themselves.

    I think trigs is onto something . . . three strikes and you pay the freight.

    Jesus christ, fucking read.

    >50% say they were using protection - it failed. Nothing is 100%.

    Further, you pissing and moaning about your tax dollars going to something you disagree with is garbage. The government has deemed abortion as a legal and viable option for women - that means it funds it. You don't get to pick and choose any more than I do, if so, see my earlier post.

    Mark
  • Wetts1012 wrote: »
    For the record, the waitlist of prospective adoptive parents is over 2 years long. There is no lack of willing parents out there to take an unwanted child, and that my friends, doesnt cost the government anything.

    Also untrue

    Who do you think pays for all the Children's aid workers? Not to mention the baby bonus stuff again.... quick look at the NB baby bonus says it's between $270 and $290 per month / kid. So, someone with one kid costs more tax money in three months than a single abortion. Who wants to take odds that #kids > #abortions.

    Mark
  • DrTyore wrote: »
    Also untrue

    Who do you think pays for all the Children's aid workers? Not to mention the baby bonus stuff again.... quick look at the NB baby bonus says it's between $270 and $290 per month / kid. So, someone with one kid costs more tax money in three months than a single abortion. Who wants to take odds that #kids > #abortions.

    Mark

    not sure what part is untrue, the fact that the list of prospective parents is over 2 years long?

    Its not, Im on it.

    I'll agree that the current state of red tape in the process costs alot. Going through it as a consultant I can list over a hundred ways to reduce cost in the process.

    Plus youre pretty mad ITT. Not sure what the deal is with that.

    Im pretty sure the thousands of prospective parents in Ontario would gladly lineup outside the clinic to convince the people to wait it out 9 months and then pass off the opportunity to parent to a willing recipient.
  • Wetts1012 wrote: »
    not sure what part is untrue, the fact that the list of prospective parents is over 2 years long?

    Its not, Im on it.

    I'll agree that the current state of red tape in the process costs alot. Going through it as a consultant I can list over a hundred ways to reduce cost in the process.

    Plus youre pretty mad ITT. Not sure what the deal is with that.

    Im pretty sure the thousands of prospective parents in Ontario would gladly lineup outside the clinic to convince the people to wait it out 9 months and then pass off the opportunity to parent to a willing recipient.

    Hey, the thread was called "let's fight" ;)

    I don't disagree about the wait list.. I have at this point three separate persons in various stages of adoption that are close to me. Can things be more efficient? EVERYTHING can be (see Royal Cup improvements thread).

    The thing that drives me beyond rage is the people who justify their clearly prejudicial stances on things that have almost nothing to do with them. As I said earlier, my tax dollars go to funding delivery room doctors, and baby bonuses, and any number of tax breaks parents get - and as a "never gonna have 'em" kinda guy, I at least admit that giving breaks to parents allows them to do things that have hidden savings like raise a kid in a manner that will prevent further drains on our system through crime, dependency, or even just allowing them to learn not to be complete dicks by playing sports.

    But this abortion clinic closure means that every woman of child bearing ability in NB is now basically being told that a choice that they - BY LAW - have is essentially out of their hands, unless they travel to another fucking province, and people still think that's fine? People are celebrating it? Unbelievable. As I posted in the other thread about the idea that religion will one day be equated with racism / sexism / otherisms? This, seen through that kind of filter, fits scarily well.

    As for you and your adoption thing - hey, great. I sincerely hope it works out with as little hassle for you as it can. But do I think that these hundreds of potential parents have any right to say a woman should go through labor / birth / etc for their benefit? I'm sorry but no.

    Mark
  • meh, I cant provide a logical argument, because Im really biased, and its wrong to argue with emotion.

    For the record, if anyone knows anyone thinking of heading to "the clinic", have them send me a PM!
  • DrTyore wrote: »
    You and your accusations of monetary drive are clearly questionable at this point...

    Not really, Morgentaler made millions as a result of his crusade and his clinics. This has been reported quite widely.

    He ran this, at a deficit, for years.

    Yeah, I said that already . . . subsidized by the profits from his clinics in other provinces.

    And the want to make money and help provide much needed resources for people aren't mutually exclusive.. but you know, demonize away since you were his personal accountant.

    I have nothing against a business making a profit, so long as it is legal. Which, as you feel the need to keep reminding us ad nauseum, Morgentaler's clinics are. No argument from me on this point.

    This isn't a matter of 2-tier medical, it's a matter of passive misogyny. "Well, there's still abortion if, you know, it's necessary as deemed by medical professionals" is still "oh, silly girl, you got pregnant? Well, I hope you learn from this mistake as you rear an unwanted child - do be sure to not cock it up despite your likely unsuited situation".

    But it is two-tiered. If you have enough money, you go to Morgentaler's clinic and pay to get rid of your "mistake". If not, you need to go through the standard provincial process. that is the very definition of what people refer to when talking about two tiered medical service.

    Further, fuck the money argument moreso. You know what? There's too many people on the planet, and I for one don't much care if everyone 1000 years from now isn't the same heritage as me, so fuck the baby bonus... you wanted to have a kid, you foot the bill. I never want a kid, but my tax money is going to every kid - wanted or not - in some regard or another. I'd rather it go to abortion, but when I say "Hey, you wanted to be a parent, you should be able to do it on your own", I get dirty stares from you fucking breeders.

    Mark

    I'll remind you of this post when you go to collect your CPP in a couple decades. Who do you think will be paying for your monthly cheque? Not me, but my daughter will be helping you out.

    Face it, Mark, as a strictly economic discussion, I am on the (sorry) side of the angels on this one.
  • DrTyore wrote: »
    Jesus christ, fucking read.

    >50% say they were using protection - it failed. Nothing is 100%.

    Further, you pissing and moaning about your tax dollars going to something you disagree with is garbage. The government has deemed abortion as a legal and viable option for women - that means it funds it. You don't get to pick and choose any more than I do, if so, see my earlier post.

    Mark

    Government picks and chooses all the time . . . that is part of the problem. See my post about PSA testing. That is a potentially life saving procedure, but OHIP is too cheap to pay for it. Why? You tell me . . . maybe it's a little passive misandry?
  • I am in favour of "choice" however the $$$ argument just doesn't fly.. In Canada we are desperately short on new birth arrivals... The ONLY reason our population is increasing at all is immigration and Milo is right on that one point for sure. We do not have enough people paying into retirement funding to pay Mark out when he retires...

    Our gov't wastes way more money in stupid stuff than they ever do with adoption processes... That is so small as to be insignificant.. Red herring imo.
  • Milo wrote: »
    I'll remind you of this post when you go to collect your CPP in a couple decades. Who do you think will be paying for your monthly cheque? Not me, but my daughter will be helping you out.

    Face it, Mark, as a strictly economic discussion, I am on the (sorry) side of the angels on this one.

    You're making this about Morgentaller's profitable philanthropy instead of the governments misogynistic missteps.

    Mark
  • compuease wrote: »
    I am in favour of "choice" however the $$$ argument just doesn't fly.. In Canada we are desperately short on new birth arrivals... The ONLY reason our population is increasing at all is immigration and Milo is right on that one point for sure. We do not have enough people paying into retirement funding to pay Mark out when he retires...

    But our population IS increasing.. so what's the problem?

    The world is overpopulated, if anything a better approach would be to more evenly balance vs. encourage more locals to breed.

    Mark
  • Milo wrote: »
    I'll remind you of this post when you go to collect your CPP in a couple decades. Who do you think will be paying for your monthly cheque? Not me, but my daughter will be helping you out.

    Face it, Mark, as a strictly economic discussion, I am on the (sorry) side of the angels on this one.

    Hardly necessary since we quite rightly rid ourselves of mandatory retirement.

    Mark
  • DrTyore wrote: »
    Hardly necessary since we quite rightly rid ourselves of mandatory retirement.

    Mark

    Let's just see how you feel about this 20-30 years down the road... You have no idea and are looking at it from a very socialistic point of view...

    And remember I am mostly pro choice, but this facet of your argument is way off base...
  • DrTyore wrote: »
    The thing that drives me beyond rage is the people who justify their clearly prejudicial stances on things that have almost nothing to do with them. As I said earlier, my tax dollars go to funding delivery room doctors, and baby bonuses, and any number of tax breaks parents get - and as a "never gonna have 'em" kinda guy, I at least admit that giving breaks to parents allows them to do things that have hidden savings like raise a kid in a manner that will prevent further drains on our system through crime, dependency, or even just allowing them to learn not to be complete dicks by playing sports.

    So, you will stipulate that society has, by their actions in electing successive governments that have enacted these types of provisions, condones and approves of them as being a common "good", is that correct?

    But this abortion clinic closure means that every woman of child bearing ability in NB is now basically being told that a choice that they - BY LAW - have is essentially out of their hands, unless they travel to another fucking province, and people still think that's fine?

    If not, they can contribute their money to keep the clinic open. But the population of NB, through the same process mentioned above, have enacted the current laws surrounding abortion in their province. It is up to them to change them, not you or I. In the meantime, would you like the address to send a cheque?

    People are celebrating it?

    Where have I said that I am "celebrating"? I am sure some religious fanatics are, but they are wingnuts, anyway. I have tried to address this from a purely economic point of view, and my stance remains unchanged. Until they change the laws in NB, I do not want Government reaching into my wallet to send money to a private enterprise. the fact it's an abortion clinic is irrelevant to that position.

    Unbelievable. As I posted in the other thread about the idea that religion will one day be equated with racism / sexism / otherisms? This, seen through that kind of filter, fits scarily well.

    Again, where am I mentioning religion?

    As for you and your adoption thing - hey, great. I sincerely hope it works out with as little hassle for you as it can. But do I think that these hundreds of potential parents have any right to say a woman should go through labor / birth / etc for their benefit? I'm sorry but no.

    Mark

    Could you be more of a condescending prick?
  • compuease wrote: »
    Let's just see how you feel about this 20-30 years down the road... You have no idea and are looking at it from a very socialistic point of view...

    And remember I am mostly pro choice, but this facet of your argument is way off base...

    Sorry dad

    You'd be hard pressed to convince me that money should be denied to women that want an abortion because I may one day want money to retire on. The retirement issue is a huge problem we're barreling down, I agree. But this is because of a boom in babies born post WW2. I get that...

    The need for money there does not, and CAN NOT, be considered as justification for forming second class citizens of women.

    Mark
  • DrTyore wrote: »
    Hardly necessary since we quite rightly rid ourselves of mandatory retirement.

    Mark

    Not to get off topic, but even though technically according to the code there is no mandatory retirement, most companies have the legal right to hedge benefits to a significant degree after 65, almost a force of hand scenario.

    Back on topic.
  • Never mind . . .
  • DrTyore wrote: »

    The need for money there does not, and CAN NOT, be considered as justification for forming second class citizens of women.

    Mark
    Wasn't me who brought $$$ into the discussion but I am definitely against providing tax dollars to provide profit for a private enterprise. That has nothing to do with it being to pay for abortions or make cars or buggy whips.... I am for abortions for certain approved reasons but not unlimited... Man, where does responsibility fit in all this? How about people who cause cost pay that cost, or at least the majority... Down with socialism..!
  • Wetts1012 wrote: »
    Not to get off topic, but even though technically according to the code there is no mandatory retirement, most companies have the legal right to hedge benefits to a significant degree after 65, almost a force of hand scenario.

    Back on topic.
    Exactly..... Man Mark you really don't have any idea do you? Have you never heard of forced buyouts? All the government has done is make business (instead of themselves) be the bad guys..
Sign In or Register to comment.