<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Ten Pro-Life Wedges To Bring Down Abortion</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.socon.ca/ten-pro-life-wedges-to-bring-down-abortion/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.socon.ca/ten-pro-life-wedges-to-bring-down-abortion/</link>
	<description>Confronting the culture of death</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 May 2012 21:33:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe</title>
		<link>http://www.socon.ca/ten-pro-life-wedges-to-bring-down-abortion/#comment-25432</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 13:14:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socon.ca/?p=6314#comment-25432</guid>
		<description>Putting a law in place that disallows abortion after 20 weeks does not legitimize abortion before 20 weeks.  That would require a law which legitimizes abortion before 20 weeks.  However, it does put a framework in place which reduces abortion, especially if the &quot;20&quot; weeks was an initial threshold to be adjusted over time based on scientific evidence as to when human life begins.

As with all things, there are right ways and wrong ways to introduce legislation.  A fixed 20-week law that also legitimized pre-20 week abortions would be a disaster.  An initial 20-week law that did not speak on the legitimacy of pre-20-week abortions, and which subjected the &quot;20&quot; to further scientific study on the beginning of human life, would be a major step in the right direction over &quot;no law&quot;, the latter not being NO LAW, but law based on common practice, which says ANYTIME before what we define as final birth, even if that is a few days after scientific birth.  That&#039;s what &quot;no law&quot; means today in the courts.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Putting a law in place that disallows abortion after 20 weeks does not legitimize abortion before 20 weeks.  That would require a law which legitimizes abortion before 20 weeks.  However, it does put a framework in place which reduces abortion, especially if the &#8220;20&#8243; weeks was an initial threshold to be adjusted over time based on scientific evidence as to when human life begins.</p>
<p>As with all things, there are right ways and wrong ways to introduce legislation.  A fixed 20-week law that also legitimized pre-20 week abortions would be a disaster.  An initial 20-week law that did not speak on the legitimacy of pre-20-week abortions, and which subjected the &#8220;20&#8243; to further scientific study on the beginning of human life, would be a major step in the right direction over &#8220;no law&#8221;, the latter not being NO LAW, but law based on common practice, which says ANYTIME before what we define as final birth, even if that is a few days after scientific birth.  That&#8217;s what &#8220;no law&#8221; means today in the courts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lwestin</title>
		<link>http://www.socon.ca/ten-pro-life-wedges-to-bring-down-abortion/#comment-4798</link>
		<dc:creator>lwestin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 2010 04:45:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socon.ca/?p=6314#comment-4798</guid>
		<description>I would not agree that replacing &#039;no law&#039; with  a law that disallows abortion after 20 wks , would be considered legitimate by JP11 standards. I also would not agree that a law banning types of procedures when currently there is &#039;no law&#039;, would be morally acceptable as a wedge. I cannot see how defining some as acceptable and some as not, &#039;in law&#039;, would not be a step worse than no definitions &#039;in law&#039;.
Our family has been having an e-mail discussion about this very thing. So far it seems the &#039;youngers&#039; are for making a law that restricts and the &#039;elders&#039; are against supporting a law that implicitly legitimizes - about a 50/50 split.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would not agree that replacing &#8216;no law&#8217; with  a law that disallows abortion after 20 wks , would be considered legitimate by JP11 standards. I also would not agree that a law banning types of procedures when currently there is &#8216;no law&#8217;, would be morally acceptable as a wedge. I cannot see how defining some as acceptable and some as not, &#8216;in law&#8217;, would not be a step worse than no definitions &#8216;in law&#8217;.<br />
Our family has been having an e-mail discussion about this very thing. So far it seems the &#8216;youngers&#8217; are for making a law that restricts and the &#8216;elders&#8217; are against supporting a law that implicitly legitimizes &#8211; about a 50/50 split.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SUZANNE</title>
		<link>http://www.socon.ca/ten-pro-life-wedges-to-bring-down-abortion/#comment-4797</link>
		<dc:creator>SUZANNE</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:03:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socon.ca/?p=6314#comment-4797</guid>
		<description>I have a few other suggestions.

Perinatal policy-- Quebec happens to have ones. Parents should have the right to reclaim the bodies of their deceased fetuses, regardless of the method of death. They can also be buried. That&#039;s operating policy in Quebec.

Better Abortion stats. Stats aren&#039;t reliable in Canada. &#039;Nuff said.

Make it obligatory to distinguish between those stillbirths that are from natural causes of death, and those that are from late-term abortions.

Keep stats on late-term abortion in Canada. Right now, it&#039;s a hodge podge of stats. Whether they are reported or not depends on the abortionist.

Ban Intracardiac injections. Sticking a needle in the heart of a third trimester baby is cruel.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have a few other suggestions.</p>
<p>Perinatal policy&#8211; Quebec happens to have ones. Parents should have the right to reclaim the bodies of their deceased fetuses, regardless of the method of death. They can also be buried. That&#8217;s operating policy in Quebec.</p>
<p>Better Abortion stats. Stats aren&#8217;t reliable in Canada. &#8216;Nuff said.</p>
<p>Make it obligatory to distinguish between those stillbirths that are from natural causes of death, and those that are from late-term abortions.</p>
<p>Keep stats on late-term abortion in Canada. Right now, it&#8217;s a hodge podge of stats. Whether they are reported or not depends on the abortionist.</p>
<p>Ban Intracardiac injections. Sticking a needle in the heart of a third trimester baby is cruel.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic page generated in 0.915 seconds. -->
<!-- Cached page generated by WP-Super-Cache on 2012-05-30 20:09:18 -->
<!-- Compression = gzip -->