Abortion Laws in the Eoropean Union

[waldo]

OK Waldo, you obviously can't follow along so I'll try to make it simple for you:

1) I do not "presume to emulate" any of the European countries. What I have said is that if the debate ever re-opens, looking at what other countries have done is a good place to start. Unlike you, I don't have all the answers. I've stated my opinion clearly - I fully support a Woman's right to Choose - but once that decision is made, there should be some form of safeguard in place to protect both the mother and the unborn child. That's simply my own opinion and people do not have to agree with it. Can you put your position into words Waldo.....or will you continue to blather on, saying absolutely nothing?

2) As for Harper, this thread was not about the Maternal Healthcare initiative - it was about what other parts of the world are doing. If I do (or don't) have a position on the Conservative position on MH, I'll state it in the other thread. Nice try at trying to deflect the issue and avoid taking a stand.

oh, really... you sure went out of your way to cut/paste an entire article offering a country-by-country situation within Europe... niggled the 'progressive label' so as to emphasize, surely, your so-called 'lefties in Canada', will just have to get on board with something from civilized "progressive" Europe, emphasizing your "non-civilized" characterization of Canada, at large. So... this, your latest reply, is simply another deflection to allow you to get out of actually stating your position on a favoured European country, or a favoured European condition.

and, of course, you offer up another deflection concerning Harper Conservatives... yes, Simple, you can deflect Maternal Healthcare related references to the other concurrently running thread (and then you can avoid answering over there). However, you're avoiding Harper Conservatives references that apply to this thread - you refuse to take a position on those... you refuse to take a position on why the Harper Conservatives won't formally open the debate, within Canada. Equally, as applies to this thread, you won't take a position on why the Harper Conservatives, don't agree (enough) with your concerns for the so-called rights of the unborn; that is to say, agree enough to open the debate, within Canada.

and, of course, not only do you not deflect from... you continue to outright ignore... the morality issue - the issue you brought forward, but now feverishly back-peddle from.

of course, we've seen your junkyard dog approach come forward several times in the past... gold, real gold! Will your argument from intimidation prevail?

[Keepitsimple]

and, of course, not only do you not deflect from... you continue to outright ignore... the morality issue - the issue you brought forward, but now feverishly back-peddle from.

of course, we've seen your junkyard dog approach come forward several times in the past... gold, real gold! Will your argument from intimidation prevail?

Waldo, Waldo....you poor Schlepp. What I've said on "morality" is that without legislation, we are dependent on the morality of physicians to do abortions for the right reasons.....that they will not do it simply for the money in less than ideal circumstances. Apparently, you simply do not care. Here's an excerpt from Rosie DiManno's column today:

I do not for a moment believe that any pregnant woman would make the decision for a late-trimester abortion casually. But I’m not convinced the reasons are always good enough and, yes, when a fetus is that close to becoming a living human being, there is a place for Canadian society to say: Stop, show us why this is necessary. At the risk of giving ammunition to the absolutist pro-life forces, I will state what I honestly feel: That seems too much like killing an unwanted baby.

Now Waldo.....will you tell me where you stand on any of this? I thought not.

[waldo]

What I've said on "morality" is that without legislation, we are dependent on the morality of physicians to do abortions for the right reasons.....that they will not do it simply for the money in less than ideal circumstances.

Simple ton, you certainly don't need to rehash the exact same thing you've already said... what you do need to do... what you refuse to do, is qualify your statement on morality. At what point, or up until what point, in Simpleworld, are doctor's and those partaking in the procedure, or those advocating for full unencumbered access to the procedure, meeting your standard of morality? Just at what point does the Simple standard on immorality register - "kick in"... and what is it based on? You brought up the issue of morality - don't back-peddle from it... define it/explain it. Sure you can!

[myata]

OK, following persistent requests the best we have to narrow the rationale to open this discussion comes to these two matters:

1. The others do something of the kind; and

2. Theoretical possibility of moral consternation if there's no law that defines exactly how it should be treated.

Generally I think it's perfectly fine to consult with the others; the question is why? Really, if somebody digs an irrigation canal fifty miles long and builds an photocell awning over their house, should I consider doing the same? Well it depends on where I am, i.e what my problems are. If I live next door to my neighbor in a desert, may very well be so. But what if I'm in a cottage in the woods near lakeshore?

And so, are we looking here for solutions to a real, practical problem? Or seeking the problem for application of an intrusive, pseudo moralistic ideology with a view to limit basic and fundamental rights of individual? I'm afraid we have little information about it from the OP.

And now, to the second point. Granted, there's always this question of practical justification for such activity, i.e. how keen the problem actually is? Has it ever happened and what was the consequences to justify necessity for an all-out new legislation? Again, OP isn't very informative on the matter.

But again, regardless of practicalities, the core fundamental issue has to be addressed. And we'll address it in a rational way consistent with the way our society operates. Let's imagine that indeed some five, no even six month healthy "twins" are about to be aborted for no other reason than mother's wish (note that I haven't studied the subject enough to make an assumption that it's actually possible short of serious surgery operation). If mother's decision were to be granted, the fetuses would be terminated; if mother is made to bear to term, it would mean, for her, at least three months of severe physical and mental distress, not to mention possibility of serious complications.

Stated in these terms, the question becomes that of weighing one individual's distress against another's life, or in this case, possibility of another's life. And sad as such choices are, our society answers it very clearly: nobody can force individual to experience serious physical distress even to save another's life. Consider another example: somebody is dying of a serious illness and is in urgent need of transplant. Somebody else has a match. Can they be required by law to go through a one time distress of losing some of their tissue, to save another's life? The answer is very clear and we all know it.

This of course in no way to imply that there is any kind of equality between a living individual and an unborn fetus. For once, a fetus cannot even survive outside of mother's body. But even when a living individual is involved, our laws do not allow to force anybody to go through serious distress to save it. So why would some call for it to applied in the case where, for all rational reason, no living person is involved?

I could only think of one reason: all the experence has shown us that it's always easier to begin establishing control over a part of population, better still, less prominent and weaker part. Say "I want to control all of you folks" and you'll be laught out loud. But say "we need to control those senseless women "murdering" their unborn children"; or "insiduous marriages to wrong body types" and you may yet get some traction somewhere. If it's a question of a fundamental right, essential right of individual, there's no way an arbitrary line could be drawn somewhere in between. The right of an individual to control their own body is absolute, it either exists or not, and the court recognised as much. The only direction in which this debate could move now is to diminish i.e. take away this fundamental right.

Edited May 17, 2010 by myata

[Keepitsimple]

Simple ton, you certainly don't need to rehash the exact same thing you've already said... what you do need to do... what you refuse to do, is qualify your statement on morality. At what point, or up until what point, in Simpleworld, are doctor's and those partaking in the procedure, or those advocating for full unencumbered access to the procedure, meeting your standard of morality? Just at what point does the Simple standard on immorality register - "kick in"... and what is it based on? You brought up the issue of morality - don't back-peddle from it... define it/explain it. Sure you can!

Waldo - your inane blathering is tiresome. I keep hoping that by providing some sort of reasoned reply to your protestations, that you would somehow be able to actually join one of these threads with an actual position on something - anything. But no, your paranoia of being criticized for actually taking a stand leads to being a mumbling baffoon. Unlike you, I know that whatever opinion I might have is simply that - one person's opinion. And with the complex issue of abortion, morality is the the eyes of individuals. Many Catholics, among others believe that all abortions are immoral. Many others believe that as a fetus approaches a stage of being viable for life, abortions are immoral. Some people believe that having abortions as a method of birth control is immoral. My own personal opinion - and it is only important to me - is like I said before - a woman should choose and stick with it. I do not have an arbitrary "moral" approach that dictates 12 weeks or 18 weeks or whatever nor do I claim to be smart enough figure one out. In any event, my morality cannot be forced onto a woman so what I think is irrelevant. I just feel that if I was to look at a sonogram, there would come a point that I would think that aborting the fetus would not be right.....where that point is, I don't really know but I know it must be an awful choice for a woman to make.

Now.....once again Waldo. Will you utterly amaze anyone on this board who might still be reading your posts....will you amaze those one or two people and tell us what your position is? Here - I'll help you....because it appears that this is your position - and Waldo - it's OK - I won't be upset with you. I'll respect your opinion.....but I really would like to know what it is.

Do you believe in the complete, uninhibited Woman's right to choose....including late term abortions - no restrictions, no counselling, no gestation limitations?

[Argus]

Stated in these terms, the question becomes that of weighing one individual's distress against another's life, or in this case, possibility of another's life. And sad as such choices are, our society answers it very clearly: nobody can force individual to experience serious physical distress even to save another's life.

Oh really? Suppose they're 8 months. Do we simply shrug and say it's up to the mother then too? Does our society answer this quite clearly? Seems to me our society hasn't had anything to say on it for some time now as there are no laws. However, the surveys of what "our society" desires appear to show the majority of its members are quite uncomfortable with the thought of allowing said mother to abort her fetuses at that length without any real justification being made to responsible agencies of the government.

In fact, our society appears quite enamored of government regulation and supervision of just about every aspect of life, from what trees we can cut down in our own back yard to what changes we can make within our own homes. Society seems to feel it has an interest in looking out for our interests regardless of whether we know what's good for ourselves or not. So why is this so very different?

[WIP]

Oh really? Suppose they're 8 months. Do we simply shrug and say it's up to the mother then too? Does our society answer this quite clearly? Seems to me our society hasn't had anything to say on it for some time now as there are no laws. However, the surveys of what "our society" desires appear to show the majority of its members are quite uncomfortable with the thought of allowing said mother to abort her fetuses at that length without any real justification being made to responsible agencies of the government.

Well for one thing, a pregnant woman will potentially be putting her life at risk again by getting pregnant if the religious authorities get their way again. For example, in a recent story a U.S. nun who was administrator of a Catholic hospital is under threat of excommunication and being removed from her position for allowing an abortion to be performed on a woman that doctors had advised would be fatal if pregnancy continued. http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/05/17/roundup-saving-mothers-life-gets-excommunicated

In fact, our society appears quite enamored of government regulation and supervision of just about every aspect of life, from what trees we can cut down in our own back yard to what changes we can make within our own homes. Society seems to feel it has an interest in looking out for our interests regardless of whether we know what's good for ourselves or not. So why is this so very different?

Nonsense! If there is clear indication that the public welfare is harmed, then interfering with personal rights is justifiable, otherwise it should be avoided.

[myata]

Oh really? Suppose they're 8 months. Do we simply shrug and say it's up to the mother then too? Does our society answer this quite clearly?

Yes it does, Argus, it answered it very clearly when it didn't impose a law on you to donate your kidney (bone marrow, blood, etc) every time somebody in dire condition needs it.

And indeed being uncomfortable about other's choices is a normal state of affairs in this complex and diverse society. Requiring others to be forced into standards that I declare to be the only right ones is much different thing though, a clear symptom of ideology driven, socially conservative way of thinking.

Well, why don't we do it a logical way, leading by example as opposed to useless preaching? You asking for people to abandon control over their bodies, so what part of control over your own body are you willing to let go of, for the greater good?

[yarg]

Yes it does, Argus, it answered it very clearly when it didn't impose a law on you to donate your kidney (bone marrow, blood, etc) every time somebody in dire condition needs it.

This is no argument at all, a fetus is a seperate form of life growing inside of a woman, some feminists call them parasites, the same type of feminists that want no restrictions at all on abortion. A kidney is part of your body, giving it away takes away from your body, a fetus is an additional part when it is gone the body returns to its complete state.

And indeed being uncomfortable about other's choices is a normal state of affairs in this complex and diverse society. Requiring others to be forced into standards that I declare to be the only right ones is much different thing though, a clear symptom of ideology driven, socially conservative way of thinking.

Some choices are wrong, even when women make them, imagine that, women aren't perfect.

Well, why don't we do it a logical way, leading by example as opposed to useless preaching? You asking for people to abandon control over their bodies, so what part of control over your own body are you willing to let go of, for the greater good?

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.

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.

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.

Edited May 18, 2010 by yarg

[waldo]

My own personal opinion - and it is only important to me - is like I said before - a woman should choose and stick with it. I do not have an arbitrary "moral" approach that dictates 12 weeks or 18 weeks or whatever nor do I claim to be smart enough figure one out. In any event, my morality cannot be forced onto a woman so what I think is irrelevant. I just feel that if I was to look at a sonogram, there would come a point that I would think that aborting the fetus would not be right.....where that point is, I don't really know but I know it must be an awful choice for a woman to make.

you chose to speak of morality… specifically the immorality of doctors, and by extension and inference, you questioned a participating women’s morality and those who choose to advocate on their behalf. What moral standing do you hold for a fetus, and at what point do you assign it? Essentially, effectively, more likely intended than not, you’re questioning the morality of abortion itself. Some might suggest you would presume to legislate morality… is that the case, Simple?

[Keepitsimple]

you chose to speak of morality… specifically the immorality of doctors, and by extension and inference, you questioned a participating women’s morality and those who choose to advocate on their behalf. What moral standing do you hold for a fetus, and at what point do you assign it? Essentially, effectively, more likely intended than not, you’re questioning the morality of abortion itself. Some might suggest you would presume to legislate morality… is that the case, Simple?

Waldo.....I've given you chance after chance on a variety of subjects to actually state an opinion - to take a position - on anything. I'm not seen a shred of evidence that you are anything but a bitter little man with no concern for anything other than trying to make yourself look smart. I notice that very few posters respond to you anymore....so I assume they've put you on "ignore". That's what I'm finally doing.....Good Luck to you Waldo....you're officially on Ignore.

[myata]

Well, one more time, and there's no avoiding asking this until we get a definite answer to this critical question:

- You are asking others to submit control over their bodies, so which part of control over your own body are you willing to let go of for the sake of somebody's ideology, greater good or any other worthy reason?

Please don't deviate from answering this simple and direct question. Otherwise we'll have no choice but to assume that sheer control over lives of others for its own (power and control's) sake is the one and whole rationale for this exercise.

[waldo]

Simple, that's fine... you simply won't read me state this was simply your repeat pattern seen several times previously, although this occurrence was less transparent in your attempts to use it to deflect from yourself. In response to one of your previous 'junkyard dog acts', demanding a stated position, another MLW member pointed out your obtuseness in not recognizing legitimate argument styles - debate tactics.

Simple, in this particular instance, you clearly followed both concurrent running threads on this abortion topic. You clearly would have read my repeated advocacy for the status quo position within Canada, you clearly would have read my criticism of social conservatism, you clearly would have read my criticisms toward Harper Conservative actions/methods, you clearly would have read my criticisms of religious intrusion upon a secular state/condition, etc. And, of course, you clearly would have read my direct challenges to your OP within this thread. You would have read me question your rationale for reopening the debate as well as questioning your lack of stated justification in presuming a need to reopen the debate - your lacking justification as balanced against the practiced condition within Canada. Certainly, challenging you on your morality attachment seems to have been the tipping point... perhaps one of the few areas I didn't challenge or question you on, was your patronizing side - others seemed to be holding you to account in that regard, quite well - indeed.

Edited May 18, 2010 by waldo

[Keepitsimple]

An interesting article from Barbara Kay.....food for thought:

Here are four emotion-free suggestions that all Canadians should find reasonable, or at least not unreasonable, as a way of breaking the logjam on this emotion-charged issue:

1. Women seeking abortion have the right to informed consent, as they would in any other surgical intervention. That is presently not the case. For example, it is now settled science (four unequivocal articles in Lancet and other top science journals in the last two years alone) that induced abortion increases the risk for premature birth in future pregnancies; the more abortions, the higher the risk. Premature birth brings a host of risks, like mental difficulties, blindness, pulmonary problems, and most troublingly, cerebral palsy. At the moment, no abortion clinic informs women of these risks. They should.

2. Because abortions are performed without any requirements for counselling, or even a 24-hour delay, most women are not aware that abortion poses a risk for later psychological effects, such as depression and lingering guilt, even thoughts of suicide. Abortion defenders will pull out their studies showing there is no effect, but I have seen many plausible studies to the contrary and have heard too many personal testimonials to believe this is a myth fabricated by religious fanatics. What's the harm in women being made aware of the risk? At the same time they could be made aware of the support available for a safe and expense-free alternative: delivery of a healthy baby and adoption out to a grateful and caring family.

3. Gendercide is a troubling practice in certain cultural enclaves. Wouldn't all Canadians be happy to see posted advisory panels on every ultrasound machine stating that the abortion of a healthy fetus because of its sex runs counter to Canadian values?

4. Most Canadians agree that in cases of rape and incest and circumstances where the mother's health is involved -- and here of course we have the grey area of mental and psychological health -- the mother is a "patient." But let's face it: In cases where abortion of a healthy fetus is merely a form of retroactive birth control, or a matter of convenience, then the healthy woman is a "client," not a patient, and the procedure entirely elective, not necessary. Many elective procedures are paid for by private insurance. There's a thought.

Link: http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/05/18/barbara-kay-a-catholic-cardinal-opposes-abortion-this-is-news.aspx

[Molly]

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.

[WIP]

An interesting article from Barbara Kay.....food for thought:

Link: http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/05/18/barbara-kay-a-catholic-cardinal-opposes-abortion-this-is-news.aspx

To hell with Barbara Kay! She's another conservative wag who's trying to push Canada into adopting the same bad ideas that the U.S. is grappling with. Are we to believe that women who seek abortions are so stupid that they do not know what they are getting into without a panel of anti-abortion advocates pushing their propaganda at her? And oh yes, let's defund abortion just like they've done south of the border, where abortion is available depending on income level!

What happens when the anti-abortion agenda is preeminent and there are no alternatives to their morality? A pregnant woman with a life-threatening development during pregnancy may die even now in situations where the doctors at Catholic-run hospitals dither about whether the threat to her life is great enough to allow an abortion. When there are no other alternatives, it's a game of Russian Roulette:

Hospital policy dictated that to qualify for an abortion, a woman's risk of dying had to be greater than 50 percent if her pregnancy was carried to term; a committee of physicians ruled that Lee did not meet this criterion.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/05/17/when-catholic-care-isnt-care

Edited May 18, 2010 by WIP

[Oleg Bach]

The EU is an obsentiy..give it time and they will attempt to curb the birth of Muslims by poisoning the minds of their woman and children - and convinced them that abortion is empowerment of the female. This lie is by design to control people- first they will insist that tradtional female Muslim dress is oppressive- and that being a whore is better- then the whore will become pregnant and she will abort..great scenario.

[yarg]

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.

If there is no law, there are no rules, anything is possible, and it shouldn't be legal for a woman to terminate a fetus (baby) very late in a preganacy, period.

If the problem doesn't exist what is the problem with enshrining it in law, it seems that law would not cause anyone, except maybe a left wing crusader, any concern at all. A law that states you shall not terminate a preganacy beyond a certain number of weeks would do nothing beyond just that, no amount of paranoia justifies your asertion. The groups that most defend abortion at anytime consider a fetus to be a parasite and of no value, i defend thier right to make that choice, but not without some reasonable limitations.

Btw, i am not "old", nor am I uneducated, im sure most of you on the left are educated as well, but then arts degrees don't count for much in my book, stereotypes are wonderful things, though sometimes they are true.

Edited May 19, 2010 by yarg

[waldo]

If there is no law, there are no rules, anything is possible, and it shouldn't be legal for a woman to terminate a fetus (baby) very late in a preganacy, period.

period? No so-called "late-term" abortions (after 20 weeks)... period? A statistic previously offered: 0.4% of all abortions performed in Canada are so-called "late-term", principally performed due to risk to a woman's life/health and/or fetal impairment... and are performed subject to the discretion of a physician-patient.

your no abortions performed - period, imposed by your fervent desire to impose law(s), would have politics/ideology/religion/presumed morality/etc., supplant the existing view that abortion is a health procedure, one managed by and under the authority of health professionals. Under your no abortions performed - period, proviso, physicians would/could face criminal prosecution or imprisonment for providing clinically appropriate care for their patients. Alternatively, if you were to attach conditions to your no abortion performed - period, proviso... presumably to allow overriding medical authority to prevail, as required,... just how would that be any different than the current status quo condition within Canada?

[myata]

Well, to my honest surprise, I'm not getting much traction here with this simple question (that was asked no less than twice previously):

- You are asking others to submit control over their bodies, so which part of control over your own body are you willing to let go of for the sake of somebody's ideology, greater good or any other worthy reason?

Which leaves me quite puzzled why it happened to be this way given that some of us are (were?) so eager to "reopen discussion". Logically, I can see two possibilities,

#1 (As a result of this productive discussion or otherwise) the posters no longer support state enforced limits on abortion; or

#2 By refusing to specify the limits of control over their bodies they would be willing to submit for the sake of ideology, greater good of society, etc, those same posters subscribe to hypocritical, idelogical and irrational drive to establish control over individual's fundamental freedoms such as ability to control one's own body.

Again without some sort of further input, we can't determine with certainty which of the two possibilites it would be. Though from my position in this discussion, this state of affairs is sufficient as:

- If it's the first case, we're in agreement and have no further argument;

- And in the case #2, no productive rational discussion is possible, as in any case where a group of individuals is attempting to force their irrational ideas or beliefs on the rest of the society. Sure your ideology may require everybody to get naked, bodypaint in pink and green and walk around in circles upside down no less than seventeen times a day. You sure have the right to believe that, or anything else, but also please understand that it has very little to do with the rest of us here, who are trying to live in relative peace respecting each other's private individual choices even if we wouldn't always agree with them.

But, this situation still leaves me somewhat confused as to that unusual behaviour, why sit mum now and keep everybody puzzled about what that silence could mean, when only a few moments earlier we were so eager to "reopen the discussion"?

[Molly]

If there is no law, there are no rules, anything is possible, and it shouldn't be legal for a woman to terminate a fetus (baby) very late in a preganacy, period.

If the problem doesn't exist what is the problem with enshrining it in law, it seems that law would not cause anyone, except maybe a left wing crusader, any concern at all. A law that states you shall not terminate a preganacy beyond a certain number of weeks would do nothing beyond just that, no amount of paranoia justifies your asertion. The groups that most defend abortion at anytime consider a fetus to be a parasite and of no value, i defend thier right to make that choice, but not without some reasonable limitations.

Btw, i am not "old", nor am I uneducated, im sure most of you on the left are educated as well, but then arts degrees don't count for much in my book, stereotypes are wonderful things, though sometimes they are true.

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.

[fellowtraveller]

You nearly snuck in a false premise OP, nice try!The false premise of course is that a 'law' is needed at all.

No wait, look over here how this law works, no over here this one is better.

Administration of abortion in Canada starts from a very different place: that abortion is a medical procedure, therefore no law is required other than would be applied to any medical procedure in Canada: accessible, safe, publicly funded. The decsion is not legal and involves no lawyers or application to the justice system, simply agreement between patient and physician.

It is very very hard for Prolifers to challenge that in court, since there is no law to begin with......very frustrating no doubt, but.... too bad.

Nice try on the OP.

[waldo]

oh my! That end-around Harper Conservative attempt via the G8 Maternal Health position... or the resultant emboldening of some within this thread... surely, couldn't have anticipated this response from the Quebec National Assembly - right?

Quebec demands PM clear up abortion ‘ambiguity' - National Assembly unanimously passes motion calling on Harper government to respect free access to procedure and halt cuts to women’s groups

The Quebec National Assembly has taken aim at the Harper government over abortion and demanded Wednesday that it stop being so ambiguous on the issue.

Politicians on both sides of the chamber have unanimously adopted, by a margin of 109-0, a pro-choice motion.

That motion demands that the federal government continue respecting free access to abortion, end its “ambiguity” on the matter, and stop cutting funding to women's groups that favour abortion.

The Harper government has, in fact, promised not to legislate on abortion.

But its refusal to fund abortions as part of a G8 maternal-health initiative is among several recent events that have reopened the passionate debate, which has long been dormant on the federal stage.

The motion will be transmitted, provincial politicians say, to the federal House of Commons and Senate.

The motion adopted reads as follows:

“That [Quebec's] National Assembly reaffirms the right of women to free choice and to free and accessible abortion services, and asks the federal government and the prime minister of Canada to put an end to the current ambiguity on this issue, and that the National Assembly reaffirms that the fact of supporting women's right to an abortion should not in any case be used by the federal government to cut funding to a women's group.”

[eyeball]

I'm not really "keen" to re-open the debate at all, but seeing as almost all Western countries seem to have settled the issue, it seems likely that Canada will have to address it at some point in the future.

Why? We already addressed it, along with almost all of the other Western countries.

[myata]

And so the intrigue continues:

- why (reopen the debate)?

- what (problem would it solve)?

- which (part of control over your body you yourself would be willing to forgo for the sake of sheer ideology)?

Please don't keep us waiting much longer, it's getting unbearable!