Maternal Healthcare and funding for Abortions

[myata]

You seem to forget that Canada is actually following the will of Parliament (the recent motion that was defeated that tried to include abortion in "Family Planning" for Maternal Healthcare)......or is that only relevant when it comes to Parliamentary motions that go against the government?

No, your point is valid of course. The any government that respects their own country as well as other country abroad, will follow its principles exercised on its own soil. And when it wouldn't it would be kept in check, i.e. made to do so by working opposition (in a working democracy).

So what we see here is a double failure, by the ideology driven conservative government, to which all what was said still applies, and by inefficient opposition that was unable to make it follow our own laws and standards.

[Muddy]

No, your point is valid of course. The any government that respects their own country as well as other country abroad, will follow its principles exercised on its own soil. And when it wouldn't it would be kept in check, i.e. made to do so by working opposition (in a working democracy).

So what we see here is a double failure, by the ideology driven conservative government, to which all what was said still applies, and by inefficient opposition that was unable to make it follow our own laws and standards.

I have no idea how you figure the present government has some hidden agenda in regards to abortion! At their first policy convention ,Harper had the abortion issue squashed. Myself and others had a proposed policy on Partial Birth Abortion that was kicked to the side in no uncertain terms by Harper`s people. I thought and still think that there should be guidelines for Doctors in regards to what is a fetus and what is a human baby. The Harper government will not even discuss abortion.There is no hidden agenda ,at least on this issue. Me ,I am not totally against abortion. I see every case differently .But then what do I know. I am but a mere man.

[myata]

I have no idea how you figure the present government has some hidden agenda in regards to abortion!

But I didn't need to "figure out" anything! It's Harper's government itself that made this announcement, reversing long standing policy that was also consistent with Canada's own laws.

Just like earlier, on death penalty.

Just like earlier, on Kyoto.

How have you failed to figure it out, is of course a different story.

[Argus]

"Deeply divided" is a pointless distraction. While it's a standing state of affairs in Canada, the policies abroad should be consistent with our own laws. To do otherwise is hypocritical, and of course sheer, ideology driven opportunism.

We don't HAVE any laws in Canada which deal with abortion. Furthermore, the UN doesn't seem terribly interested in pushing it either. So it's not like we're going against world opinion here.

[Molly]

The G8 has at least two countries (in addition to Canada) that are deeply divided over abortion ...

So?

Deeply divided, though? I think not. Like Canada, those nations seem to have had the issue essentially settled for decades.

[Keepitsimple]

Nice article in the National Post on abortion - a lot of information....here's just the introduction:

In reality, for 20 years, there has been no meaningful debate over abortion law in this country, and this tempest over the Tories' decision not to add new funding for foreign abortions seems unlikely to change that. Canada is the only democratic country on Earth with nothing to say, legislatively, about abortion, and all major federal parties have vowed to leave it that way.

In a country with no rules, and a political class evidently terrified of even considering any, the status quo silence seems bound to persist, even if a large number of voters preferred it didn't. If Canadians, at least publicly, are incapable of even tolerating an edifying discussion about something like Mr. Harper's maternal health initiative, so loosely connected to Canadian abortion rights, without falling into predictably paralyzing positions and rhetoric, there seems little hope of us ever seriously confronting it at all.

Abortion debates elsewhere aren't always considered bad. However arduous the exercise, other democracies have somehow braved the struggle of reviewing their balance between the rights of women against the ethics of abortion. The Spanish government last fall unveiled amendments to its abortion laws; this month the Mexican government announced new rules governing how doctors discuss abortion; and at any given time you'll find several American states experimenting with legislative fiddles to Roe v. Wade.

Every European country, even those considered most secular and progressive, puts some limits on the timing and justifications allowable for abortions. But for 20 years, since the Mulroney government tried and failed to restrict abortions to only cases where a mother's health was at risk, federal and provincial governments have done their best to steer clear of it.

Link: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2972995

[Molly]

We don't HAVE any laws in Canada which deal with abortion.

And since there is clearly no problem, we obviously don't NEED any! (Just like we don't NEED special laws to deal with appendectomies.)

[Molly]

Nice article in the National Post on abortion - a lot of information....here's just the introduction:

Link: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2972995

It is an okay article , Keepitsimple. Generally I view such things with an extremely jaundiced eye- outright dismissively in fact, because they are generally people at zero risk smugly calling for 'reasonable debate' of the rights of others.

This, however, caught my eye:

At the very least, Ms. Somerville says, having any legislation, even one that does little to actually limit abortion access or popularity, sets a cultural tone about how a nation feels about something. Currently, she thinks Canada's message is that abortions are an inconsequential matter.

She is precisely correct in her first sentence. That's why I'm generally unwilling to allow BS on the subject to go unchallenged.

Her second sentence, though, misses the mark. Abortion is not inconsequential, ever. The absence of legislation says that it's very important, but that the consequence to the individual far, far, far outweighs the interest of the state. The message is that not everything can or should be legislated, and in particular that the state has no place in the uteri of the nation.

[M.Dancer]

Abortion in most cases is just extreme cosmetic surgery.

It should (in most cases) be seen as elective surgery.

[Molly]

Abortion in most cases is just extreme cosmetic surgery.

It should (in most cases) be seen as elective surgery.

And to be able to attest to this, you've been pregnant how many times?

[Keepitsimple]

It is an okay article , Keepitsimple. Generally I view such things with an extremely jaundiced eye- outright dismissively in fact, because they are generally people at zero risk smugly calling for 'reasonable debate' of the rights of others.

This, however, caught my eye:

At the very least, Ms. Somerville says, having any legislation, even one that does little to actually limit abortion access or popularity, sets a cultural tone about how a nation feels about something. Currently, she thinks Canada's message is that abortions are an inconsequential matter.

She is precisely correct in her first sentence. That's why I'm generally unwilling to allow BS on the subject to go unchallenged.

Her second sentence, though, misses the mark. Abortion is not inconsequential, ever. The absence of legislation says that it's very important, but that the consequence to the individual far, far, far outweighs the interest of the state. The message is that not everything can or should be legislated, and in particular that the state has no place in the uteri of the nation.

I think her point is that without ANY law, our perceived message COULD be that a woman can do anything she wants anytime, without any thought of the fetus/baby - or her own welfare. Again - our lack of laws COULD be perceived as an inconsequential matter....and of course it's not.

With regards to the state having no place in the uteri of the nation......sounds nice.....but the state also has an obligation to safeguard those who cannot protect themselves......that's where you get laws that protect against late-term abortions and provide counselling to women so that they do not end up hating themselves.....so that they understand how an abortion can affect their future well-being. I think that's what Germany's legislation has evolved to providing. Unfortunately, I agree with the article that our political arena has become so poisoned by pro-life and right-to-choose extreme activism and advocacy that we can't have a rational dialogue.

Abortion in Germany is technically permitted in the first trimester upon condition of mandatory counseling and a waiting period, and in rare exceptional cases afterwards.

History

Legalization of abortion was first widely discussed in Germany during the early 20th century. During the Weimar Republic, this discussion led to a reduction in the maximum penalty for abortion, and in 1927 to the legalization - by court decision - of abortion in cases of grave danger to the life of the mother.

In Nazi Germany, the penalties for abortion were increased again. From 1943, abortion was threatened with the death penalty. [1] On the other hand, abortion was at times forced upon members of parts of society that were considered undesirable.

After World War II, abortion remained broadly illegal in both East Germany and West Germany, with West Germany retaining the legal situation of 1927 while East Germany passed a slightly more encompassing set of exceptions in 1950. The legal requirements in the West were extremely strict, and often led women to seek abortions elsewhere, particularly in the Netherlands.

East Germany legalized abortion on demand up to 12 weeks of pregnancy in 1972 in the Volkskammer's only-ever non-unanimous vote before 1989. After West Germany followed suit in 1974, the new law was struck down by the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany as inconsistent with the human rights guarantees of the constitution. It held that the unborn have a right to life, that abortion is an act of killing, and that the fetus deserves legal protection throughout its development. Nevertheless, the legal opinion strongly hinted that increasing the number of situations in which abortion was legal might be constitutional.

As a result, in 1976, West Germany legalized abortion up to 12 weeks of pregnancy for reasons of medical necessity, sexual crimes or serious social or emotional distress, if approved by two doctors, and subject to counseling and a three-day waiting period. In 1989, a Bavarian doctor was sentenced to two and a half years in prison and 137 of his patients were fined for failing to meet the certification requirements.

The two laws had to be reconciled after reunification. A new law was passed by the Bundestag in 1992, permitting first-trimester abortions on demand, subject to counselling and a three-day waiting period. The law was quickly challenged in court by a number of individuals - including Chancellor Helmut Kohl - and the State of Bavaria. The Federal Constitutional Court issued a decision a year later maintaining its earlier decision that the constitution protected the fetus from the moment of conception, but stated that it is within the discretion of parliament not to punish abortion in the first trimester, providing that the woman had submitted to state-regulated counselling designed to discourage termination and protect unborn life. Parliament passed such a law in 1995. Abortions are not covered by public health insurance except for women with low income.

[myata]

Abortion in most cases is just extreme cosmetic surgery.

It should (in most cases) be seen as elective surgery.

Just like atherosclerosis, etc resulting from unhealthy lifestyle?

[M.Dancer]

And to be able to attest to this, you've been pregnant how many times?

Remind me to comment the next time you comment about something....which in 99% of the cases will be about something you have not done personally.

How jejune...

[Guest TrueMetis]

We don't HAVE any laws in Canada which deal with abortion. Furthermore, the UN doesn't seem terribly interested in pushing it either. So it's not like we're going against world opinion here.

So what any random guy on the street can perform an abortion? Last time I checked the person doing the abortion had to be a doctor.

[Molly]

I think her point is that without ANY law, our perceived message COULD be that a woman can do anything she wants anytime, without any thought of the fetus/baby - or her own welfare. Again - our lack of laws COULD be perceived as an inconsequential matter....and of course it's not

.

Without thought to her own welfare? Do you have any idea how incredibly patronizing that is? To suggest that adult women need a state-sponsored keeper to 'help' them make decisions in their own interests? Why not just go whole-hog Taliban, and have her nearest male relative make the decisions on her behalf?

provide counselling to women so that they do not end up hating themselves.....so that they understand how an abortion can affect their future well-being.

Yikes!

....

Unfortunately, I agree with the article that our political arena has become so poisoned by pro-life and right-to-choose extreme activism and advocacy that we can't have a rational dialogue.

It's a human rights/personal physical integrity thing- even a life and death matter.... Either you have first dibs on use of your body/body parts, or someone else has. There's really no room at all for compromise there. None at all.

[M.Dancer]

To suggest that adult women need a state-sponsored keeper to 'help' them make decisions in their own interests?

Exactly. That's why abortion should be seen as an elective procedure, and not paid for by the state..

[myata]

Exactly. That's why abortion should be seen as an elective procedure, and not paid for by the state..

Let's try again:

Just like a score of health issues caused by "elective" choice of poor life style / failure to stay healthy and fit?

[myata]

Without thought to her own welfare? Do you have any idea how incredibly patronizing that is? To suggest that adult women need a state-sponsored keeper to 'help' them make decisions in their own interests? Why not just go whole-hog Taliban, and have her nearest male relative make the decisions on her behalf?

No, Taleban, they are the bad guys! Catholic priest or local CPC representative on the other hand, can be fully trusted with that burdensome but highly benevolent duty (when they aren't busy with their "small" government of course)

Edited May 4, 2010 by myata

[Molly]

Pregnancy itself is 'elective', so I suppose we shouldn't cover any sort of pre or post natal care, nor, of course anything reproductive at all, + or -.

[Uncle 3 dogs]

Iam just as happy as anyone else to point out American hypocracy, but it can cut both ways. Just because it's Hillary saying it doesn't mean it's not valid. It is very unreasonable and hypocritical of our government to try to deny access to safe abortions to those women who require assistance in other countries.

[ToadBrother]

Exactly. That's why abortion should be seen as an elective procedure, and not paid for by the state..

Interesting. So do you think mending broken legs for skiers or arterial surgeries for chronic overeaters should also be elective?

[ToadBrother]

Abortion in most cases is just extreme cosmetic surgery.

It should (in most cases) be seen as elective surgery.

Not that I'm actually agreeing with your rather silly premise, but I would like some actual citations to studies. I mean, you're not just sort of making this up, are you?

[M.Dancer]

Not that I'm actually agreeing with your rather silly premise, but I would like some actual citations to studies. I mean, you're not just sort of making this up, are you?

What are you asking for? Citations that show that pregnancy changes the apprearence? That some women who have abortions do so cause they are unwilling to be pregnant? That most abortions are elective?

According to this site, 98% of abortions are elective.

Most of the reasons listed for having an abortion fall into a few categories.

Medical/rape/incest 7%

Peer pressure/societal pressure 2.5%

Inconvience 90%

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

[ToadBrother]

What are you asking for? Citations that show that pregnancy changes the apprearence? That some women who have abortions do so cause they are unwilling to be pregnant? That most abortions are elective?

According to this site, 98% of abortions are elective.

Most of the reasons listed for having an abortion fall into a few categories.

Medical/rape/incest 7%

Peer pressure/societal pressure 2.5%

Inconvience 90%

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

I'm asking you to justify your claim that it is cosmetic. Not wanting to have a baby hardly justifies the claim "It's cosmetic". It appears you're committing the fallacy of the excluded middle.

[M.Dancer]

I'm asking you to justify your claim that it is cosmetic. Not wanting to have a baby hardly justifies the claim "It's cosmetic". It appears you're committing the fallacy of the excluded middle.

Of course it can be cosmetic....women who do not want the inconvience of pregancy have it so they don't "look pregnant"...

Otherwise if it would simply be an issue of giving a baby up for adoption... varicose veins, hemmoroids, stretch marks, saggy breasts be damned...