Bill C484 - Abortions

[M.Dancer]

Abortion was more of an issue for me before I became a man.

Umm....Guyser? I think this one must be yours...

[Oleg Bach]

Abortion was more of an issue for me before I became a man.

Well said - once you are a mature man - you are not going to say to the woman - get rid of it! You will do your duty and give the woman your full support and loyalty. Now adays woman abort because there are no real men left - or husbands - just partners...husbandry is a lost craft.

[the janitor]

Well said - once you are a mature man - you are not going to say to the woman - get rid of it! You will do your duty and give the woman your full support and loyalty. Now adays woman abort because there are no real men left - or husbands - just partners...husbandry is a lost craft.

Right on! You hit the nail dead on the head. Good for you! I agree with you 100% and I'm glad you were perceptive enough to see the point I was trying to make.

I also find it a little bit ironic that most conservative thinkers, voters and governments are all for standing up for the rights of the unborn, but get a bit uncomfortable when it comes time to pony up some federal funds for things like daycare space. "Vote Conservative: we won't let you terminate your pregnancy and we won't do a thing to help you make sure the child grows up healthy and loved and above the poverty line if the jerk who got you pregnant decides to just skip out!"

What a load of crap!

[Bryan]

Right on! You hit the nail dead on the head. Good for you! I agree with you 100% and I'm glad you were perceptive enough to see the point I was trying to make.

I also find it a little bit ironic that most conservative thinkers, voters and governments are all for standing up for the rights of the unborn, but get a bit uncomfortable when it comes time to pony up some federal funds for things like daycare space. "Vote Conservative: we won't let you terminate your pregnancy and we won't do a thing to help you make sure the child grows up healthy and loved and above the poverty line if the jerk who got you pregnant decides to just skip out!"

What a load of crap!

No, what's crap is expecting a government handout, and then using that expectation as an excuse to murder an innocent human being.

[the janitor]

No, what's crap is expecting a government handout, and then using that expectation as an excuse to murder an innocent human being.

Social programs are not government handouts any more than a defence contract is: government money is OUR money.

Edited May 15, 2008 by the janitor

[M.Dancer]

Social programs are not government handouts any more than a defence contract is: government money is OUR money.

So if it's our money, is it okay if I just keep mine?

[maldon_road]

Good, at least now we all agree that was indeed the intent of this bill. I.e. Harper's conservatives are indeed taking a position (guess what) on this issue. Despite all the assurances that they won't. Remember? Another example of holding to promises? Or just sticking to their core principles?

BTW, is there anybody from the Liberals here, to comment on their stance? Or should we deduce it from another abstained vote?

This is a private member's bill. Its passage or defeat in no way affects the status of the government. It cannot fall on it. And the Liberal Party will have no position on it. It only passed second reading because sufficient Liberals voted for it. Whether they will vote for it at third reading (assuming it gets out of Committee) is another matter.

[guyser]

Umm....Guyser? I think this one must be yours...

Yes well, its a rookie and I must let it slide .

[MontyBurns]

Now adays woman abort because there are no real men left - or husbands - just partners...husbandry is a lost craft.

All the men have been converted into gays, metrosexuals, liberals, socialists and so on. A lot of men think that being a pansy makes them "progressive".

[Oleg Bach]

All the men have been converted into gays, metrosexuals, liberals, socialists and so on. A lot of men think that being a pansy makes them "progressive".

Look at the way Bush prances and dances out of the big green helicopter like a girly man. No wonder he lies so much. Strong men do not need to lie to survive..weak men do - I agree. When a man shows honour and stands up for his rights in this stupid nation ..he is persecuted. So you have to be shrewed when you speak and make sure you don't get swarmed by the progressives who operate in burecratic politically correct packs..like cowards they will attack you in slanderous groups...so - you must be careful...I do have a word for dis-honourable straight men - hetrofags..no gay but not men.

[guyser]

All the men have been converted into gays, metrosexuals, liberals, socialists and so on. A lot of men think that being a pansy makes them "progressive".

Which one are you?

progressive.?

[Oleg Bach]

Which one are you?

progressive.?

Look...an attack....hold your ground and do not turn your back...

[myata]

This is a private member's bill. Its passage or defeat in no way affects the status of the government. It cannot fall on it. And the Liberal Party will have no position on it. It only passed second reading because sufficient Liberals voted for it. Whether they will vote for it at third reading (assuming it gets out of Committee) is another matter.

It's the lack of their clear position that is the most problematic. If they came in favour of some restrictions on late term abortions, while reaffirming the right in general, I could understand that, though not agree. The bill as is, opens the door for legal argument against all abortions because it sets no term on the fetuses' special status. (Partial) Liberal support for it is hugely detrimental to their position as it takes away another principle on which they could differentiate themselves from Harper's conservatives. And without them, principles, what's left?

[MontyBurns]

Which one are you?

progressive.?

You must be one of those "progressives" that I mentioned.

[WIP]

Harm to any part of a pregnant woman's body is already a crime. You're only confirming that with this bill they wanted to make a statement that an unborn fetus merits some special status, and/or protection, in its own right. This is the first step in recognizing it as an independent human being that would make strong argument for restricting the right to abortion in the future.

The analogy is incorrect; the point of the hate law is not that the victim is of certain race, but that the crime was motivated by hate (racial, ethnical, etc).

I don't know if it's at all possible to separate the politics from an abortion debate, but what if the 2nd or 3rd trimester foetus does deserve some protection from harm! Right off the bat, this pits the rights of the mother against the right to life of the foetus, but it's worth considering that there is no magic line of demarcation that makes it a person just at the point where it leaves the womb. Between 26 and 32 weeks, it's likely that the foetus is developing some ability to sense pain, since it is during this time that the neural connections are being made between the thalamus and the developing cerebral cortex. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_pain If the third trimester foetus is developing a pain-sense, does that create a moral obligation to protect it from harm except for conditions such as when the mother's health is at risk or there are congenital defects that will reduce the quality of life.

[WIP]

Can we all at least agree that this is an emotionally charged issue? I mentioned this earlier, but perhaps someone could tell me where I'm wrong. In Canada, the record is very clear, there are NO doubts. Our courts are very pro abortion. If this were an attempt at weakening abortion laws, our supreme court would simply not stand for it, calling it unconstitutional. They have done this before with other laws they didn't like.

They're not pro-abortion; they just find it easier to privatize the ethical issues surrounding abortion and leave everything up to the woman! In most cases, that's probably the right course of action, since any state interference by a pro-life legal system is going to restrict the rights of the pregnant woman. But at some stage, by the third trimester, the foetus is capable of living outside the womb and starting to develop the cerebral cortex level of the brain that generates our conscious awareness. It's easier to privatize all moral decisions, but this might be a point where the judges should consider that they may have to decide between the competing rights of the mother and the foetus.

[myata]

I don't know if it's at all possible to separate the politics from an abortion debate,

If we try just that, as I said I would understand, if not agree, if the party took a special position on the late term; as it stands though, it has no position whatsoever, allowing its caucus members to support a bill which may potentially be used to restrict right to all abortions, with no qualification. I.e they're behaving in this instance every bit like conservatives, setting chances of getting to power above all principles. Let's see how it'll help them get elected; they lost my vote, for once.

there is no magic line of demarcation that makes it a person just at the point where it leaves the womb.

Having seen my siblings born and grow, I can't be sure if newborn can be called "a person" the moment they leave the womb. A newborn has a small number of reflexes and begins to exhibit any kind of behaviour around 2-3 months after birth. And most definitely they aren't a "person" before they're born for the simple fact that they can't exist on their own.

Between 26 and 32 weeks, it's likely that the foetus is developing some ability to sense pain, since it is during this time that the neural connections are being made between the thalamus and the developing cerebral cortex. .

The fact that something living is sensitive to pain in no way prevents us from inflicting it. We allow killing animals routinely for food, clothing, decoration, sport, and meaningless rituals. So in itself, when pitted against mother's expressed wish to not seek completion of pregnancy, the argument of pain means very little. Certainly an argument can be made to make the procedure humane, but it's a different story.

By giving any fetus some special status, the proponents of this bill are attempting to bridge the gap (legal if not scientific) between a fetus and a human. If successful, it can be used, should the political situation offer a chance, to limit the right to abortions.

Of course, any such attempt would be in contradiction to the Charter, and the courts have already ruled on that. So in all likelihood, this is a dead end game. However it tells us a lot about those who just wouldn't let the thing go; as well those who can't (and/or won't) stand up for a principle.

[WIP]

If we try just that, as I said I would understand, if not agree, if the party took a special position on the late term; as it stands though, it has no position whatsoever, allowing its caucus members to support a bill which may potentially be used to restrict right to all abortions, with no qualification. I.e they're behaving in this instance every bit like conservatives, setting chances of getting to power above all principles. Let's see how it'll help them get elected; they lost my vote, for once.

I remember this argument that a ban on 3rd trimester abortion is a wedge issue was raised a few years back, when Bill Clinton was president, and he vetoed a bill that would ban on "partial-birth" abortion. One of arguments against the ban, was that it could endanger the lives of women who were seeking to terminate the pregnancy for health reasons - since that was the main reason for the relatively small number of abortions performed late in pregnancy; and the other reason was the fear that it was a 'wedge' to gradually expand restrictions on abortion until the U.S. ended up with something like El Salvador - where a woman suspected of having an abortion can be manacled to a hospital bed and have her uterus treated like a crime scene awaiting investigation!

But the nightmare 'El Salvador' scenario, depends on the acquiescence of a public which either believes in this policy, or is so afraid of the Church authorities, that they tolerate it! Even in the U.S., where there are greater numbers of pro-life absolute opponents of abortion, the majority of Americans continue to fall in the middle between the two opposing forces - even many of the people who identify themselves as pro-life, make exceptions for situations of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is in danger. This soft support for pro-life would fold if some sort of Catholic Church sanctioned total ban on abortion became the law. Much of the reason why the public agreed to the practical solution of legalizing abortion was because of nightmare situations such as happened to a family that lived on our street back in the early 60's: their estranged daughter had turned to prostitution and became pregnant; some time during 1962 - 63 she died from complications resulting from an illegal abortion. She was only 17 or 18 at the time. In this day and age, as soon as young women start dying as a result of "pro-life" laws, support will melt away!

But, when it comes to third trimester abortion, it's worth asking if an abortion is sought because of something frivolous like the sex of the child not being the one desired by the parents, should that be regarded as virtually identical to the same parents killing their newborn because it is a girl and not a boy, for example?

Having seen my siblings born and grow, I can't be sure if newborn can be called "a person" the moment they leave the womb. A newborn has a small number of reflexes and begins to exhibit any kind of behaviour around 2-3 months after birth. And most definitely they aren't a "person" before they're born for the simple fact that they can't exist on their own.

Right! A newborn's brain and neural networks still have to grow and develop for many years to come. I'm not sure if the law has changed since I was in high school, but when I took a Canadian Law class in grade 12, the crime of killing an infant under the age of 12 months was given the separate charge of infanticide. Becoming human is a very gradual process that begins at fertilization, and continues on through childhood, as awareness developes.

The fact that something living is sensitive to pain in no way prevents us from inflicting it. We allow killing animals routinely for food, clothing, decoration, sport, and meaningless rituals. So in itself, when pitted against mother's expressed wish to not seek completion of pregnancy, the argument of pain means very little. Certainly an argument can be made to make the procedure humane, but it's a different story.

A little off topic, and I'm not a PETA fanatic, but I have seen the public attitude towards intelligent animal life change during my lifetime. The livestock industry (especially factory farming) is going to face serious challenges to the legitimacy of the way they harvest cattle, pigs, chickens etc. in deplorable conditions that are only tolerated by the meat-eating public because it is done out of sight of everyone not involved in the livestock and meat processing industries.

The traditional religion-based worldview was that man (which occasionally includes woman) was created separate, above the animal world and had dominion over them. Any pain and suffering of animals was not a consideration for people who lived before the modern age. But since the time scientific discovery has revealed us to be an animal on the primate branch of the mammalian kingdom with an oversized cerebral cortex, many modern people look at the lesser animals in a different light.

In the long run, a desire to reduce human-caused animal suffering and the environmental costs of growing animals for consumption will likely lead to a vegetarian future.

By giving any fetus some special status, the proponents of this bill are attempting to bridge the gap (legal if not scientific) between a fetus and a human. If successful, it can be used, should the political situation offer a chance, to limit the right to abortions.

I think it should in cases like I mentioned above where a late term abortion will be performed for non-life threatening reasons. Traditional societies that give women little value or respect, like India and China, have found they are experiencing an imbalance in the natural male/female dynamic because of abortions of female foetuses. This is not only infanticide, it is also creating a dangerous imbalance in their populations, with too many young men seeking out too few young women.

Of course, any such attempt would be in contradiction to the Charter, and the courts have already ruled on that. So in all likelihood, this is a dead end game. However it tells us a lot about those who just wouldn't let the thing go; as well those who can't (and/or won't) stand up for a principle.

Since the majority of people are somewhere in the middle of pro-life and pro-choice, a middleground position might be a greater protection for abortion rights in general, since it will take the ugly issue of 'partial-birth' abortion off the table. When the pro-life zealots hold up sickening posters featuring pictures of aborted foetuses at their rallies, it's the late term aborted foetuses that are their poster children. A picture of an aborted zygote isn't developed enough to look human and cannot provide a sufficient emotional response for propaganda purposes.

[myata]

I believe most developed countries have some restrictions on late term abortions, qualified by medical necessity, and overall a balance can be found between women's right to not go through an unwanted pregnancy, and (some part of) the public' unease about termination of late term (ie. near developed) human embrios.

I don't see any serious desire in the public to bring the debate back, but should it come to it, that could be a reasonable middle ground position of compromise. The proposed bill does nothing of the sort though; it's some kind of a bone to the Conservatives's socially conservative wing. Why Liberals are playing into their goals, is simply beyond me.

[maldon_road]

I believe most developed countries have some restrictions on late term abortions, qualified by medical necessity, and overall a balance can be found between women's right to not go through an unwanted pregnancy, and (some part of) the public' unease about termination of late term (ie. near developed) human embrios.

I don't see any serious desire in the public to bring the debate back, but should it come to it, that could be a reasonable middle ground position of compromise. The proposed bill does nothing of the sort though; it's some kind of a bone to the Conservatives's socially conservative wing. Why Liberals are playing into their goals, is simply beyond me.

A compromise? There is one, Bill C-338.

BillC-338

Most Canadians would accept that. But I gather it is not acceptable to anti-abortion activists.

[myata]

A compromise? There is one, Bill C-338.

BillC-338

Most Canadians would accept that. But I gather it is not acceptable to anti-abortion activists.

Wow, what a "compromise"! 5 years in prison for late term termination of pregnancy! Which medieval code is this one borrowed from? And surely, now, that all our crime problems are long in the past, we simply need this legislation to keep our prisons at capacity..

BTW care to share by what virtue did you divine what Canadians would think about that? And, if somebody so sure of that, why are they so shy to state it in a public debate? Surely not for the lack of public support? And certainly not out of reluctunce to demonstrate their true beliefs and values?

But indeed, I much prefer this kind of statements, which won't beat around the bush, and make very clear the position and intent of its proponents, to the stealthy advances of Harpers' crowd, one little step at a time, which, to the shame of the official opposition, it doesn't only fail to expose, but also quietly plays into.

[maldon_road]

BTW care to share by what virtue did you divine what Canadians would think about that? And, if somebody so sure of that, why are they so shy to state it in a public debate? Surely not for the lack of public support? And certainly not out of reluctunce to demonstrate their true beliefs and values?

Anti-abortionists I have talked to tell me that they won't support C-338 because it has a late threshold (20 weeks) and has too many loopholes. They seem to put more faith in C-484 (if it passes) as a lever to get abortion restrictions. I don't agree with that. By putting a provision in the bill recognizing a woman's right to a lawful abortion they have acknowledged the right of Parliament to legalize abortion.

[myata]

Yeah I know, by their very nature they won't ever accept that somebody else may have full uncompromised right to their own body. Any attempt to use C-484 to restrict actual right to abrotion will come up against the Charter and is dead before it's even started (until we have it - the Charter). That's only expected and not in the least a surprise, no matter what tune Harper wants to play to the public.

What is sad is that the Liberals, the party that actually brought the Charter in, are now failing to stand up for the principle. That's just too bad. I predict that they won't get anywhere (far), until they reestablish themselves as principled progressive alternative to Conservatives, ideally with a leader who is able to articulate their position, and stand up for it.

[maldon_road]

Yeah I know, by their very nature they won't ever accept that somebody else may have full uncompromised right to their own body. Any attempt to use C-484 to restrict actual right to abrotion will come up against the Charter and is dead before it's even started (until we have it - the Charter). That's only expected and not in the least a surprise, no matter what tune Harper wants to play to the public.

It cannot be used to argue that the fetus is a life form and abortions are therefore illegal. The bill does not protect the fetus in any way. It only provides for stiffer penalties if someone injures or kills a pregnant woman. If a pregnant woman decides to abort, that too is recognized in the bill.

[Oleg Bach]

It cannot be used to argue that the fetus is a life form and abortions are therefore illegal. The bill does not protect the fetus in any way. It only provides for stiffer penalties if someone injures or kills a pregnant woman. If a pregnant woman decides to abort, that too is recognized in the bill.

It is all vacilating hypocracy. We have situations where the medical proffession are trying to inforce "assumed concent" in regards to taking possession of your corpse for transplant purposes against your will. In effect they are stating that your corpse it the property of eilte doctors and the state. Secondly- the issue of forcing an under age cancer patient into treatment...against his will is another body grabbing situation - mean while the mentally ill are allowed to wander about and destroy themselves...through leftist freedom granted by lunitic politicians..Then you have the situation of the stealing of product of your body which are your offsprings if a parent so much as raises his or her voice during instruction...Now this buisness about a womans body belonging to her is a buch of crap when talking about abortion..the medical profession and extremist social engineers own her body...and the fetus.

The male who generates in part the conception of a child via his body and the product of his body has no rights what so ever when in comes to so-called "reproductive freedom" - This is also a fraud..it is NOT reproductive freedom but the opposite. Forced eugenics. It's tiresome when you hear all this talk about womans right when in fact all of their rights and husbandly protection have been removed and the state are now legally in the business of husbanding females. It is actually a form of animal husbandry but woman and men are to stupid to see that..so be it - to hell with the stupid people anyway - they are not fit to reproduce if they are not intelligent enough to protect themselves from the abortion industry that has grown to such a point that it serves it self and not people.

Anytime you see the term "service" attatched to an social agency you know that the bureacracy has grown to such a point that it serves only it self. The hugest hoax is the Orwellian term - "Abortion Provided" - They provide nothing and actually take away the only real wealth that a human will attain - offspring!