Molly

Whoa! The CPC =/= PC. Lots of one-time tories wouldn't vote CPC on a bet or a dare. 'Historically tory' just plain doesn't mean 'historically this kind of Conservative'.

It doesn't much matter if he's a fundie or not. So long as he's willing to suck up to them, he is the equivalent. I disagree with sentiment behind that warm and fuzzy "A political party is a sum of all of its parts, not just the leader." The leader chooses the cabinet, approves the caucus, has huge influence as to who is on the party executive; the leader essentially controls party policy. While the party chooses the leader, the leader then chooses what parts of the party will be ascendant. Fact is, I consider myself a conservative/libertarian.. but I can't live with this level nutter/fundie influence. (Nor the contempt for Canadian voters and institutions, nor the basic hard-core dishonesty of that crew.)

False. The highest popular vote Harper has managed- 37.65%- is lower than Chretiens worst outing- 38.46%

Oh Lord! Talk about your 'ugly American'.....

Wow. If you were going to quote my post, you should have actually read it. Before you put a blanket ban on late-term abortion, you need to meet a few women with troubled pregnancies, just to get a handle on what the possibilities are, and to understand why they might choose to end a pregnancy after having welcomed it for many months. It's important, I think, to understand who you are messing up, and what you are asking of them. What's wrong about such a law is this: "It would also establish the legal precedent that women are not the final authourity with respect to their own physical integrity. That's pretty incredibly important." The risk of necessary abortions being obstructed in the presence of a legal prohibition is very much greater than the risk of unnecessary abortions being performed in its absence. An infant is far, far too important for it's formation to be entrusted to a committe of beaurocrats and ideologues... and a childs mother is much much more than a disposable utility.

Yarg: At 8 months a fetus is a fully viable baby, even before that, the very possibility that some idiot woman and some crazy doctor could abort an 8 month old fetus is enough to put reasonable legal limits on abortion. Oh but it never happens anyway so why make a law about it, if it never happens then it shouldn't be a problem. It is idiocy to write law to restrict preposterous,'strains the imagination' crimes'. It ain't broke. I am pro abortion, I want women to have choice, I also want women to make those choices in a reasoanble way, abortion should not be considered some small insignifiacnt thing, women have the power to end a pregnancy, they should at least be willing to do it in a timely fashion. The vast majority, if not all, do just that, so a law saying that you can't legally do it beyond x number of weeks wouldnt do much except make abortion a bit more palatable for moderates on the issue. It would do a couple more things that are more signifigant- matter a lot more to me than whether thoughless old men quit grumbling for 5 minutes. It would create even more grief, hoops, judgment and complication for people who wish desperately only to carry a healthy fetus to term but who don't have that as an option. I know folks don't stop to think about that side of things-- the presumption is that all mothers and fetuses are healthy, all pregnancies/deliveries uneventful-- but any hospital with a NICU has plenty of proof of the falsehood of it in their maternity ward -women who are not having a good time, carrying very, very unhealthy fetuses. The fantasy situation cited to justify a law is beyond stupid. If there is not one single case like it that can be cited in 21 years of the status quo, law to end it hardly qualifies as urgent, or needed at all. It would also establish the legal precedent that women are not the final authourity with respect to their own physical integrity. That's pretty incredibly important. But this idea that it would be just fine for a woman to terminate a pregnancy at ANY time is indefensible on any moral level. Only in cases when the health of the mother is seriously at risk should that be an option late in pregnancies. That's exactly how things already are, law notwithstanding. You are demanding to solve a problem that doesn't exist, by creating one that has huge and far-reaching implications.

To be seeking 'excuse' we'd have to first think there's something wrong with the seal hunt.... but it points out that the stone-throwers live in glass houses. By the way... polling shows that 100% of Canadians (who hang out in our shop) think your anti-sealing website has no credibility.

I'm standing, cheering. 100% agreement on this one, Argus.

See, I just don't buy that at all. The 'restrictions'- things like counselling, waiting periods, getting the permission of a committee, etc. create inconvenience, but they don't in any practical way restrict anyone from doing anything... so there is no 'protection for the unborn' beyond what exists here... and the notion of the restrictions offering 'protection' for mothers is insulting. Protection from what? From the freedom to make ones own medical/life choices without interference from people whose business it isn't?

The analogy fails when you identify the victim of the crime. (And since such legislation is specifying a special victim, it's the core of the issue.) If someone chops off your arm, you are the victim. Your arm is not, independently, an additional victim.

Meh. You included it because you thought you could get away with it, or at least effectively argue the case. We know from the Canadian experience, though, that 'endanger the life or health' essentially means that the only real restrictions lie in logistics, not in the law. Since even in industrialized nations early abortions are much safer than childbirth, it's incredibly easy to make the case that pregnancy is, all by itself, a threat to life and/or health, so unless a threshhold of endangerment is specified or 'health' very restrictively defined... ya got nuthin'.

".. someone who is sitting behind the wall of parliamentary immunity, because he's testifying before a commons committee." You might expect it, but no, most people would not.

The previous MP was a Liberal, FWIW. Another Conservative nominee might have won the riding, but not by anything like that margin, and if she chooses to run as an independent next time 'round, my two bits certainly won't be on the Conservative candidate to win. While the Guergis family political sphere has, until her, been local and thus nearly unknown outside the area, it's also the most dominant dynasty I've ever run across. Until very recently, my MP, Reeve and Mayor were all named Guergis.

Excuse me? Are you so committed to the notion that abortion is *never* medically necessary that you think the only reason for abortion to be an element of a maternal healthcare package is to circumvent amateur abortions? Botched abortions, yes, are a possible cause of maternal deaths. Childbirth complications, the vast majority of which are avoidable, some via abortion, account for the other 96%!

As if! Here's a couple: http://www.unicef.org/progressforchildren/2007n6/index_41814.htm Unicef, 2005: the maternal death rate in sub-Saharan Africa was 920/100,000 births, compared to 8/100,000 in industrialized countries. Lifetime risk of maternal death is 1/8000 in inudstrialized nations vs. 1/22 in sub-Saharan Africa (1/17 in west central Africa).

No, that is not correct.

And a maternal health policy that includes abortion would not be in conflict with that position.

So it wouldn't cost much at all to maintain a policy consistent with national law, and the money would all be spent saving lives.... Or should it just be the Canadian pervue to simply say, "Too bad, Darlin'. Canadian politicians have decided that it would be immoral to save your life, so you are just going to have to suck it up and die." to women less wealthy than ourselves? (What a vicious 'let them eat cake' policy and justification!)

When exactly did 'except where a mothers life or (physical or mental) health is threatened' become 'forbidden'? Only a tiny handful of countries in the world actually outright forbid abortion.

And what was your first clue?!

And Guergis isn't? Do you seriously think the folks of Simcoe-Grey weren't familiar with her name before she ran, or that they didn't have a pretty darned good idea who/what they were voting for? She had two and one half times as many votes as her nearest rival, last election!

How obtuse...

Hohoho! I like THAT suggestion, Topaz! I find the whole situation just beyond humorous. It's been good for at least a dozen belly-laughs so far, and it doesn't look like the well is drying up yet. The only thing missing in this show is popcorn! And it looks good on all of 'em.

This sort argument is used here an awful lot. "It doesn't make any difference, therefore YOU shouldn't care about it." I return that logic, Dancer: If it's irrelevant-- if abortions are not allowed in any nation in need of aid, and therefore will be none funded anyway-- then there would be no harm, from your perspective, in humoring me by leaving the policy alone, instead of you, by changing it.

Nor can you. By altering the policy, they have either raised the issue, or tried to sneak it by. I don't believe our government is so stupid as to expect not to be challenged on such a policy change... so in my opinion, it's a sop to satisfy the wing-nuts. If you would prefer to call it the implementation of the hidden agenda, that's your choice.