Molly

Renegade- sorry. I probably shouldn't have made that comment, because I honestly don't expect many (any) to share the piquancy of that irony with me. It's just a personal rueful headshake at seeing that 'the more things change, the more they stay the same' that I should have kept to myself. I understand (and largely respect) what you mean with it, and am not challenging the validity of the concept. (Maybe in another conversation if things get really esoteric, but not now.)

WIP- anyone under 50 is too young to remember that contraception was illegal , too, until only shortly before that. So, all you whippersnappers, if you ever wondered why a condom is sometimes called a prophylactic, it's because it wasn't supposed to be used to prevent pregnancy. Just disease. It makes me laugh to hear this generation argue against abortion by advising use of contraception, because they were not so long ago considered to be equally immoral, and for the same reasons. Life is _Gods_ decision, and if you dare have sex, you've consented to pregnancy! Consequently, I have a hard time with the concept of 'implied' consent, when the one who supposedly granted it by implication is standing by, screaming "NONONONONO!"

Do you seriously believe that someone desperate enough to stick a pellet gun inside themselves and pull the trigger would be detered by the threat of mere jail?

LOL My most humble apologies to the Max's of the world. (and Madmax, too.) I've lurked in this place often enough to have a pretty good feel for the politics, and agree that on average, it leans well to the right of centre, and thus I must also admit that I'm a little surprised that it isn't more hard-line, too. However, I wouldn't hold my opinions if I didn't think that sensible people would come to much the same conclusions if given all the information. When folks 'walk a mile' (or even a few feet, usually) they come up with answers that are quite different from their initial, top of the head statements.

As a matter of fact... jailing him for 10 years makes a mockery of justice. But that's another issue, too.

That's a fair point, Renegade, but you must also concede that if someone is doing you harm, you are well within your rights to defend yourself, with deadly force, if necessary.

The difference, Max, is that the folks on the MLW poll have spent at least a few moments thinking and talking about it. The folks polled by Angus Reid may not have spent any more time pondering than the time it took to enunciate answers to the poll.

More to the point, there is even, now, a limited right for the state to extract your blood or other DNA sample if you are sufficiently criminal. (That'a a gift, because the other samples offered don't wash.) Everyone has the right not to have their body claimed and used by other people. The death of 'someone else' (if you concede that a 'someone else' even exists) is the unfortunate side effect of disallowing them first claim, occupancy and use of a womans body. Renegade, I must ask... I assumed that you would make the usual exceptions to your time limit- rape, incest, extreme risk for the mother, non-viable or mal-formed fetus.... Am I to understand that you would not, and that such issues should only be treated as mitigating circumstances in a trial?

Thank-you Renegade for stepping up to say that you would prosecute and jail all involved. I hope others will abandon the mealy-mouthed, soft-pedal terms like 'ban', too, and say outright that they are asking to have untimely abortions criminalized. I disagree of course, because I hate the idea of mothers in crisis being forced to explain and prove the hardship of their situation to folks who have nothing on the line regarding the outcome, and be at the mercy of whatever beaurocracy is put in place.... (I think of a panel appointed by Stockwell Day, for instance.) but I do appreciate the integrity of clear and honest speech. That way, at least those who are wringing their hands over what constitutes 'reasonable' can fully recognize what is being requested.

No, but I saw one that was quite a bit closer both to 5 months, and to potential viability limits than the one you claim to have chosen.

20 weeks? Didn't you vote for 3 months? I should trust the protection of my rights to someone who is that vague about their plan?

Seriously, guys-- I'm definitely in the choice zealotry camp, and will grant that in a heartbeat- Hell, I'll shout it with pride. The notion of the state presuming a high level ownership of my physical self offends me to my toes, and the issue is so visceral and so profound that something so paltry as law can have no bearing on my actions with regard to it. I honestly fear any quarter given because I know from hard experience that tiny things that can be used for harrassment _will_ be used for harrassment, and any questioning of that fundamental right of security of self is deeply debasing. (I truly don't think any man can truly identify with the prospect of the state enforcing such a 'whole person' takeover...) So I will fight all those peripheral 'not about abortion, but will be used against pregnant women' crap things that come up. Those are separate issues, to be seen one at a time. But I really, really don't get what 'reasonable demands' with regard to actual abortion law anyone here is asking for. No one will even answer the question of what they percieve a 'ban' to consist of. Are we talking about not having some abortions covered by medicare, or are we talking throwing women and their doctors into jail? Are we talking about regulatory hoops and bloody beaurocracy, or manslaughter charges? What the heck are these 'reasonable demands'? What--- exactly what-- reasonable change should be made to current practice?

Hold on a minute. What 'reasonable demand' with regard to abortion should people be accommodating? By the looks of that poll and the stats, what we have is pretty much exactly what people want-- that abortion should be relatively available in early gestation, and not available except in very extraordinary circumstances later in gestation. It doesn't make sense to write law in hope of making no practical change whatsoever, yet that's all that 'reasonable demands' seem to be asking for.

I see. Punish the defenseless.

"I don't think a theenager who 'hid' a pregnancy for 6 months should be able to get an abortion at that time because having a baby would be 'inconvienient'. " One must wonder about the intellect, maturity, state of mind and/or social conditions of someone who could/would hide pregnancy for that long. That reeks of things other than moral decay.

"As to all of your scenarios, it seems to work well for all the countries of Western Europe." The countries of Western Europe didn't arrive at their situations by way of having existing law struck down by their Supreme Courts, so we are talking completely different legal/regulatory environments. Any new law would have to find its way through the chinks of that ruling, and it is a great curiousity of mine how folks would manage that. The only way I can see is to create far broader law than a simple 'though shalt not'-- leaning into the balance of conflicting rights, and as I mentioned, legal personhood for a fetus-- which would call many nearly unrelated human rights situations into question, and open more cans of worms than even the pessimist in me can imagine. In the end, it means to me that the question is basically moot. The sort of law that Mr. Canada dances around couldn't be enacted without consititutional revisions (and likely a lot of serious violence, too)... but the more moderate suggestions like yours are similarly difficult, could not be enacted in any straightforward manner, and would almost without doubt lead to unintended consequences that legislators and citizens alike would want no part of.

I have to rephrase? Okay. Find someone who is 20 weeks pregnant with no problems associated with the pregnancy and send them out to see if they can arrange such an abortion in Canada. I'd bet a great deal that they can't manage to make the arrangements, regardless of the legal situation. It isn't 'banned', or 'criminal' or 'restricted by law', but it is extraordinarily difficult- approaching impossible- to arrange, and no one is making waves to make it easier. So I'm saying that effectively, we already have such a 'ban', not formalized in law, but very much a fact of life- ergo, it ain't broke. So, I'm not offering up hostility. I'm just asking what _exactly_ you are proposing in addition. Criminality? Hoops for doctors and seriously ill mothers to jump through when the situation is grave? What form should a national ban take? Would we throw mother who seek it into jail? Doctors, and anyone else who might aid them? And if you are proposing criminality/ person status for the fetus/ or just funding restrictions or such... have you considered the potential side-effects of those regulations. Depending on what exactly you want, it could be anything from jailing mothers who smoke to bankrupting health districts-- or even no side effect at all, though that's highly unlikely.

How about if they are _seriously_ mendacious _most_ of the time, and in very destructive ways?

Fair enough.... but I have serious doubts about the achievability of 20- week+ abortion in Canada on those grounds. And if it should be prevented, does that mean criminalized? And how much are you prepared to risk by fixing something that is demonstrably not broken?

I'd be inclined to agree with that. I wonder whether Bruinooge qualifies as a) an embarrassment a sacrificial lamb, sacrificed to suck up to social conservatives c) a trial balloon d) a distraction, to keep folks from looking too closely at the rest of what government is doing. or just what combination of the above. In any case, the fact that he has not had a visit from the whip speaks volumes.

Depending on what sources you use, and what definitions are applied, about 90% are done by 12 weeks and 97 by 20 weeks. About a third of one percent occurs after 20 weeks, and you can pretty much count on those ones being as a result of maternal health crisis, or particularly grim amniocentesis. When it comes right down to it, those are the ones I'd least like to interfere with.

"Only so-called Pro-Lifers believe that women take abortion so lightly." or that abortion services are really that accessible. Depending on where one lives and the circumstances one lives with, impediments can be very substantial indeed. The word 'whim' has no place in the conversation.

Energizes. Reminds us just how fragile our hold on that right to our own persons is. Inclines us to actually stand up and be counted when some ignorant ass starts spouting off, instead of just walking away in presumption that his mouthing off will be as disregarded by others as by ourselves.

Legal doesn't mean that it is either done or doable. Flying to Jupiter on wings of wax isn't illegal either, but I don't see you or anyone else accomplishing it. To have a health professional involved, the fetus would pretty much have to be non-viable _and_ a threat to the mother. Without health professionals, then it would qualify as a suicide attempt. Either way, 'whim' has nothing to do with it. If you can show me one (1) case of someone aborting 'on a whim' after 8 or 9 months of pregnancy, in Canada, I'll eat my hat without ketchup. If law is to be made, base it on reality, not on fanciful ravings.

...get an abortion on a whim after 8 or 9 months of pregnancy? How's that for a break with reality! In the first place, getting an obortion 'on a whim' is as doubtful a scenario as I can imagine.... but thinking it could actually be accomplished 'on a whim' ,'after 8 or 9 months of pregnancy' , even in Canada, just takes it completely over to the other side of the looking glass.