Bill C484 - Abortions

geoffrey · February 18, 2008

It simply can't be allowed to pass because it's hypocritical nonsense.

White Doors · February 18, 2008

I think a fetus' right to live at around the 6 month mark over rides the mother's right to 'choose'.

If she wants to 'choose' 6 months should be plenty of time to make that decision. If they make no decision by that time, the law says too late - you are having your baby.

I think late-term abortions should be illegal of otherwise healthy fetus'.

Alexandra · February 18, 2008

Yes - in the best traditions of Harper's sneaky conservatism, they'll never say the whole thing clearly and at once. The point is to sneak in the notion that a fetus is a "human being". To set a foothold i.e.

The Liberal MP, Paul Steckle, must be sneaking in an even more frightening Bill which actually advocates criminalizing women and doctors who have/perform abortions after 20 or so weeks of pregnancy. Would this Bill be considered in the best tradition of M. Dion's sneaky Liberalism? Since Steckle believes a woman and doctor should be jailed if performing an abortion after X weeks I would suggest that this Bill of the Liberal MP from Ontario, Paul Steckle, is far more intimidating and frightening to women than the Epp Bill.

http://www.womennet.ca/news.php?show&4433

On June 21, Parliament saw first reading of a private member’s bill by Liberal MP Paul Steckle to re-criminalize abortion. Bill C-338, 'An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (procuring a miscarriage after 20 weeks of gestation), would restrict later abortions performed after twenty weeks.
The bill would allow exceptions to save the woman’s life and "to prevent severe pathological physical morbidity of the woman." It would impose a prison term of up to five years, and/or a fine of up to $100,000 on anyone who "uses any means or permits any means to be used" to perform an abortion past 20 weeks, etc. ........

`

myata · February 18, 2008

There was a motion to outlaw partial birth abortions that Harper`s people manipulated so that it could not be debated or voted on.
Harper has no agenda to take away womens rights to choice. This is just nonsence.

What's nonsense? This bill is nonsense? Then why hasn't it been "manipulated" out of the public's view? Before possible election? Nope - it wasn't manipulated because it's a prime example of what's Harpers' bunch is all about - i.e sneak in backward outdated social policies without ever openly admitting it.

myata · February 19, 2008

http://www.womennet.ca/news.php?show&4433
`

June 21 ... 2006 Forgot to mention? Then, the policy of Liberal party on abortion, as well as other social issues is clearly expressed - unlike that of Harper Conservatives. One wonders, what it might be?

Melanie_ · February 19, 2008

Bill C-338 was given a second reading in Parliament on October 16, 2007. It is a scarier bill than C484, that's for sure, but I doubt that any party would give it support. At least I hope not.

I think a fetus' right to live at around the 6 month mark over rides the mother's right to 'choose'.
If she wants to 'choose' 6 months should be plenty of time to make that decision. If they make no decision by that time, the law says too late - you are having your baby.

I think late-term abortions should be illegal of otherwise healthy fetus'.

White Doors, abortion is legal, but not always accessible. For women who live in rural or northern communities, it can take some time to get the arrangements made, particularly if they are trying to be discreet about it or if there are roadblocks in their way. There was a thread some time ago about doctors in Fredericton refusing to give the morning after pill and also refusing to refer a patient to someone who would; certainly in an urban setting you can probably find someone else fairly easily, but I doubt that applies to all areas of Canada.

Muddy · February 19, 2008

I am a man ,and like all men I do not understand women and their emotions. I believe in womens rights to choose, but along with rights there comes responsibilitys. Aborting a child so long in a pregnancy is goulish. How can it be that a few minutes from birth is not a human ,but when it hits open air it is? Come on folks,lets be reasonable here.Even Morgentaler will not abort at this stage. Tell me when a fetus becomes a child please?

Alexandra · February 19, 2008

Then, the policy of Liberal party on abortion, as well as other social issues is clearly expressed -

So, Bill C-338 which criminalizes abortion, presented by Liberal MP Paul Steckle having passed it's first reading in October 2007, is a "policy of (the) Liberal party on abortion", you claim at 3:50 PM but at 5:40 PM, you claim this Bill doesn't speak to a policy of the Liberal party,

Yeah I know private member bill doesn't speak for a policy of a party.

Now you're claiming this Steckle Bill which could subject a woman to 5 years in prison is nothing more than proof the Liberal party "clearly expresses it's social issues policy"? The Epp Bill, which may or may not have it's first reading, speaks to dealing with the perpetrator of the murder/harm of a pregnant woman/child under the Criminal Code; it does not speak to jailing a woman who has procured an abortion as does Steckle's Bill. Perhaps you fail to understand the difference between these Bills and what the difference means to women! To place politics above a woman's choice is typically the domain of the self-important, pompous, ass.

maldon_road · February 19, 2008

What's nonsense? This bill is nonsense? Then why hasn't it been "manipulated" out of the public's view? Before possible election? Nope - it wasn't manipulated because it's a prime example of what's Harpers' bunch is all about - i.e sneak in backward outdated social policies without ever openly admitting it.

C-484 is a diluted version of a previous bill sponsored by Leon Benoit. That bill was ruled out of order and called unconstitutional by former Justice Minster Vic Toews. This bill, with many amendments, is its successor.

Since he has been PM Harper has rung out from the CPC any vestiges of the old Reform Party. The CPC is now the old PC Party with a new name. He would have no interest in trying to sneak a bill like C-484 through.

Drea · February 19, 2008

I am a man ,and like all men I do not understand women and their emotions. I believe in womens rights to choose, but along with rights there comes responsibilitys. Aborting a child so long in a pregnancy is goulish. How can it be that a few minutes from birth is not a human ,but when it hits open air it is? Come on folks,lets be reasonable here.Even Morgentaler will not abort at this stage. Tell me when a fetus becomes a child please?

While I can't tell you when the fetus becomes a child, I can tell you that I am pro-choice -- up to the 20 week mark.

That is plenty of time to decide whether to keep or abort. Once a fetus is 24 weeks, it can survive outside the womb with medical care.

Back when I was single and pregnant, I was stressed (no kidding!) and my doctor suggested he send me to Seattle (this was in 1993, was late term abortion illegal in Canada then?) for an abortion. I was 20 weeks along and said a resounding NO! I wanted the child, I was just a tad stressed and needed someone to talk to. I never went back to him. In fact I moved away and found a woman doctor who got me and my baby through the whole thing. She understood the stresses I was experiencing -- she was fantastic.

Perhaps my male doctor (being just a man) could not understand me or my "emotions". (Then what is he doing being a doctor?)

Sorry Muddy, but while your comment may have been innocent (I read it that way) it could be construed that you meant women were just "too emotional" to deal with.

Edited February 19, 2008 by Drea

Melanie_ · February 19, 2008

Muddy, I understand your reaction. I have a hard time with the idea of abortion after the fetus has reached viability (usually around 26 weeks gestation), but in the end I have to support the woman's right to choose. Most women who have abortions have them very early in their pregnancy; late term abortions are rare, and generally for medical reasons. But whatever reason a woman has for ending her pregnancy, it is intensely personal, and rarely casual. Here is some fairly recent (July 2005) information about late term abortions....

Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada

The Canadian Medical Association's abortion policy defines abortion as the active termination of a pregnancy up to 20 weeks of gestation (Canadian Medical Association, Policy on Induced Abortion, 1988). 90% of abortions in Canada are performed during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and just over 9% of abortions take place between 12 and 20 weeks of gestation. A mere 0.4% of abortions take place after 20 weeks of gestation. These are considered late term abortions.
A very small number of abortions occur after 20 weeks of gestation primarily because the fetus is gravely or fatally impaired, or the woman's life or physical health is at risk, or both (Statistics Canada, Therapeutic Abortions, 1995).

~snip~

Those opposed to abortion rights have portrayed women as having late term abortions out of "selfish convenience" or because they "suddenly can't get into a bathing suit." This misrepresentation of women’s decision making with regard to abortion is always inaccurate, but especially so in cases of late term abortion. Most women who terminate their pregnancies after 20 weeks wanted to have a child, and were forced to consider abortion for medical reasons. Other women may be in desperate social circumstances, such as an abusive relationship, or they may be very young teenagers who have delayed abortion care because they were in denial about the pregnancy.

Melanie_ · February 19, 2008

Back when I was single and pregnant, I was stressed (no kidding!) and my doctor suggested he send me to Seattle (this was in 1993, was late term abortion illegal in Canada then?) for an abortion. I was 20 weeks along and said a resounding NO! I wanted the child, I was just a tad stressed and needed someone to talk to. I never went back to him. In fact I moved away and found a woman doctor who got me and my baby through the whole thing. She understood the stresses I was experiencing -- she was fantastic.

Drea, I also remember being single and pregnant, years before your experience. I had just moved to the city to go to university, and was a few weeks shy of my 18th birthday (young, naive, just fell off the turnip truck). My doctor didn't offer me an abortion, but his receptionist did, looking furtively over her shoulder and speaking almost in a whisper. I didn't take her up on it, having had it drilled into me quite thoroughly that abortion was the most evil thing a girl could do, and I don't regret for a minute having my child. But I chose to have that baby. I had a choice. All women need to have that choice, and I'm glad your doctor offered it to you, even though it was late in the game.

maldon_road · February 19, 2008

(this was in 1993, was late term abortion illegal in Canada then?)

No. There have been no legal restrictions on abortion since 1988. However, hospitals and doctors may choose not to perform late term abortions or, for that matter, any abortions at all.

Edited February 19, 2008 by maldon_road

White Doors · February 19, 2008

Bill C-338 was given a second reading in Parliament on October 16, 2007. It is a scarier bill than C484, that's for sure, but I doubt that any party would give it support. At least I hope not.
White Doors, abortion is legal, but not always accessible. For women who live in rural or northern communities, it can take some time to get the arrangements made, particularly if they are trying to be discreet about it or if there are roadblocks in their way. There was a thread some time ago about doctors in Fredericton refusing to give the morning after pill and also refusing to refer a patient to someone who would; certainly in an urban setting you can probably find someone else fairly easily, but I doubt that applies to all areas of Canada.

Too bad. I think 6 months is long enough for them to get to a Dr.

I know abortion is legal, I;m saying that late term abortions should be made illegal. i already gave my reasons why. That is my take on it.

Certainly your argument about taking 6 months to decide does not hold any water (pardon the pun) in regards to restricting abortion to before the 6 onth gestation period.

Borg · February 19, 2008

I see margrace has successfully tossed a grenade in the room and walked away.

Surprized or not - no one has taken her to task - instead they have started blathering about past and present practise and theory.

Well done margrace you have showed your true colours again.

Borg

Edited February 19, 2008 by Borg

maldon_road · February 19, 2008

Too bad. I think 6 months is long enough for them to get to a Dr.
I know abortion is legal, I;m saying that late term abortions should be made illegal. i already gave my reasons why. That is my take on it.

Certainly your argument about taking 6 months to decide does not hold any water (pardon the pun) in regards to restricting abortion to before the 6 onth gestation period.

We have had two abortions in our family. Both for medical reasons. The problems were discovered in the 14-16th week, the abortions took place 2-3 weeks later. I think you need to give the woman 20 weeks to make up her mind. After that there could be parameters established for access to abortion.

margrace · February 19, 2008

I see margrace has successfully tossed a grenade in the room and walked away.
Surprized or not - no one has taken her to task - instead they have started blathering about past and present practise and theory.

Well done margrace you have showed your true colours again.

Borg

And I hope it opened a few peoples eyes on just how sneakiy this gov't is. Women in particular need to pay attention.,

Borg · February 19, 2008

And I hope it opened a few peoples eyes on just how sneakiy this gov't is. Women in particular need to pay attention.,

Still waiting for your proof rather than your hypothesizing.

Or is it rabid hatred?

Borg

scribblet · February 19, 2008

It appears that this bill to come up for vote on March the 5th, 2008 will allow women who have had abortions to be charges with harming a fetus.
I knew Harper was pretty slippery but this takes the cake.

Your misrepresentation of facts takes the cake.

maldon_road · February 19, 2008

Your misrepresentation of facts takes the cake.

It's even worse than that. margrace has not read the bill. But notwithstanding that decided to start a thread based on ignorance.

Drea · February 19, 2008

What I believe Margrace is eluding to is that if it is a crime for an "outside source" (not the woman herself) to kill a fetus, then it won't be much of a stretch to change it to being a crime if the woman herself decides to abort.

If a person kills a fetus while punching a woman in the stomach, he/she would be guilty of murder.

What if a man (the guy who "input" his sperm to create the fetus) decides he wants to charge a woman with murdering "his" fetus?

IMO it is a slippery slope and the wording of the bill must make sure, in no uncertain terms, that the fetus is the sole responsibility of the woman and it is not murder if she aborts.

IMO, the bill just muddies the waters and I do not like it.

maldon_road · February 19, 2008

IMO it is a slippery slope and the wording of the bill must make sure, in no uncertain terms, that the fetus is the sole responsibility of the woman and it is not murder if she aborts.

The bill states that the woman has a right to an abortion. That is an addition to Benoit's original bill.

myata · February 19, 2008

Perhaps you fail to understand the difference between these Bills and what the difference means to women! To place politics above a woman's choice is typically the domain of the self-important, pompous, ass.

For the record I think that both proposed legislations are wrong and should go straight into waste basket. All parties should state their positions on the issue clearly and unequivocally. The legal vacuum created by the Supreme court decision only encourages people like Steckle, etc to come up with their own creative interpretations. It's a waste of time. All parties that haven't already done so should publish their position on the issue, and put it to a vote if necessary.

Now Harper's PC has a record of meddling with existing government policies and practices without open discussion or even stating their position. Take their recent games around death penalty abroad.

Drea · February 19, 2008

If I, as a nasty murderer, go to jail for killing your fetus, I am going to want the same treatment for you Ms. Preggo, if you choose to abort. Me and my wonderfully supportive family and my defense lawyer will make sure of it.

That is how it will be interepreted. Guaranteed.

maldon_road · February 19, 2008

If I, as a nasty murderer, go to jail for killing your fetus, I am going to want the same treatment for you Ms. Preggo, if you choose to abort. Me and my wonderfully supportive family and my defense lawyer will make sure of it.
That is how it will be interepreted. Guaranteed.

In the US there are states that by virtue of RoevWade have abortion services and also protect the fetus similar to Bill C-484. In NY for example - after the 24th week. The law makes a distinction being the woman freely having an abortion and a murderer killing a fetus she wants to take to term.