Abortion Laws in the Eoropean Union

[Guest American Woman]

If this is true, it's right, because it's the only rational approach.

Otherwise, whether or not a person is convicted of murdering the unborn would depend entirely on the victim's declaration (honest or otherwise) as to her her decision about reproduction: murder if she were planning to keep it, not murder if she wasn't.

I disagree. As long as the woman is providing the fetus with a means to exist, ie: her body/her lifeblood, if someone else ends that existence, it is what it is in spite of any future decisions the woman may ultimately make/have made. Someone on the street ending that existence is not par with the woman herself choosing to do so in a medical setting, and it doesn't lessen the crime.

The way I see it, if someone has to make a decision whether or not to have a limb amputated due to illness, or accept the consequences, if someone on the street came along and chopped their limb off it wouldn't be less of a violent crime because the person involved may have ultimately decided to have the limb amputated.

[Molly]

The analogy fails when you identify the victim of the crime. (And since such legislation is specifying a special victim, it's the core of the issue.)

If someone chops off your arm, you are the victim. Your arm is not, independently, an additional victim.

[Guest American Woman]

The analogy fails when you identify the victim of the crime. (And since such legislation is specifying a special victim, it's the core of the issue.)

If someone chops off your arm, you are the victim. Your arm is not, independently, an additional victim.

Even without the analogy, the first part of my post stands on its own.

I still think it works in response to the idea that I was responding to; I think it at least refutes why that argument doesn't work.

Edited May 16, 2010 by American Woman

[Argus]

Unless it's not about a problem, but about some individuals seeking ways to control private choices i.e. private lives of other individuals? Funny how we want to control women in what they would do with their own bodies, then next day go half world away to liberate them from wearing "burka". But of course, there can be no logic in desire to control and dominate another, or it usually comes down to trivial "because I'm right and I can".

Why do we have laws which ban people from going around naked? Whose business is it but theirs? Why do we have laws which require the police to charge people who beat their spouses even when the spouses refuse to cooperate and don't want charges? Why do we ban people from accessing and viewing certain types of pornography in the privacy of their own homes? Why can't I use weed killer in my own garden in my own back yard? Why can't I put a nasty, racist message on my telephone or on my web site saying nasty racist things about whomever? Why can't I hire who I want to hire, and promote who I want to promote?

You are one of the champions of government interference in private lives and yet you don't seem to see any double standard in getting on your high horse and pretending society has no business in dictating moral choices to women on abortion.

[waldo]

And I agree - if Canada ever re-opened the debate, the issue would not be completely settled. I hope that Canada can keep the status quo - which puts its trust in the morality of physicians. Sometime in the future, that morality will likely be challenged by physicians who might have differring views - and what is to stop them from performing what many consider late-term abortions?

since you wouldn't directly answer the question of why you put a 15-20 year timeline around "the debate" reopening... is this your reasoning... that within that period, "immoral" physicians will come forward?

a couple of your statements from the other running thread would seem to contradict your latest statement expressing a, "hope for keeping the status quo in Canada"; specifically:

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

you clearly want laws written today... you've framed it as a morality issue. You presume to speak for "the unborn", wanting to act as a protectorate for "the unborn". You again draw reference to so-called late-term abortions as the impetus for why laws are needed today; however, by your own admission, there is no problem today... your described "doctor morality" of today, remains intact!

in your estimation, when does a doctor, or anyone for that matter, become "immoral" when participating in the procedure; i.e. at what gestational period of time? Are you saying, for example, that 12 weeks would be moral, but say, 18 weeks would be immoral? What would you base that estimation upon?

[Keepitsimple]

since you wouldn't directly answer the question of why you put a 15-20 year timeline around "the debate" reopening... is this your reasoning... that within that period, "immoral" physicians will come forward?

a couple of your statements from the other running thread would seem to contradict your latest statement expressing a, "hope for keeping the status quo in Canada"; specifically:

you clearly want laws written today... you've framed it as a morality issue. You presume to speak for "the unborn", wanting to act as a protectorate for "the unborn". You again draw reference to so-called late-term abortions as the impetus for why laws are needed today; however, by your own admission, there is no problem today... your described "doctor morality" of today, remains intact!

in your estimation, when does a doctor, or anyone for that matter, become "immoral" when participating in the procedure; i.e. at what gestational period of time? Are you saying, for example, that 12 weeks would be moral, but say, 18 weeks would be immoral? What would you base that estimation upon?

As usual Waldo, you're all over the place - blathering a lot and saying nothing. I've arbitrarily picked a 15-20 year timeframe where something could happen that re-ignites the debate. Without legislation, there is nothing to prevent something contentious from happening. How about a case where 5 month old twins are aborted - healthy fetuses that die on respirators - for no reason other than the mother changed her mind. What if the media actually decides to play that up? All I'm saying is that if that day ever comes, it would be nice to know what the rest of the world has done.

I think if you look at what other countries have done, they believe in the Woman's right to choose.....but once she has made her choice, there are restrictions that protect both the unborn child and the mother.....and for the record, I believe in that principle - choose...but there's a point where you should be expected to stick with it. Where do you stand Waldo?

[bush_cheney2004]

....They had that power deep in the night of civilized times and they want us all to go back there.

...and they still have the power. You can't force another person to perform abortions, as they have rights too. Several Canadian provinces have also undermined the "right to an abortion" by not funding them. Smells like power to me.

[bloodyminded]

I disagree. As long as the woman is providing the fetus with a means to exist, ie: her body/her lifeblood, if someone else ends that existence, it is what it is in spite of any future decisions the woman may ultimately make/have made. Someone on the street ending that existence is not par with the woman herself choosing to do so in a medical setting, and it doesn't lessen the crime.

The way I see it, if someone has to make a decision whether or not to have a limb amputated due to illness, or accept the consequences, if someone on the street came along and chopped their limb off it wouldn't be less of a violent crime because the person involved may have ultimately decided to have the limb amputated.

A really good point, and I should have added that I believe that killing a woman's fetus should be considered a crime; but it's a crime against the woman's person, not against the fetus. It isn't murder. And that was my only point.

Imagine a legal system in which Murder can be applied depending on the woman's claim that she planned to keep the baby; or not applied if she was planning an abortion. Murder charges as a woman's personal choice.

No way.

Edited May 16, 2010 by bloodyminded

[kimmy]

Just goes to show how the choice of words, if not done carefully, can inflame people - no matter where they stand on the issue. And I agree - if Canada ever re-opened the debate, the issue would not be completely settled. I hope that Canada can keep the status quo - which puts its trust in the morality of physicians. Sometime in the future, that morality will likely be challenged by physicians who might have diferring views - and what is to stop them from performing what many consider late-term abortions?

It seems like your argument is something along the lines of "hey, man, I'm pretty happy with the way things are, and I don't want to re-open this debate, but the issue isn't settled and it'll probably get re-opened sooner or later, and so we should settle the issue and since people think Europeans are progressive, we could have rules like in Europe. It probably wouldn't actually settle the issue anyway, but at least we would be doing something, even if it didn't settle anything."

If the best rationale for doing something is that other people did it, or that it's an alternative to doing nothing, that's not a very good rationale.

I'm sorry but I just got tired of hearing that any restrictions on abortion was not "progessive" if not neanderthal.

People probably would have responded better if you had started off the thread with this. It seems sincere. The attempt to rationalize it with some sort of justification that they do it in Europe or that we should do something now because there might be a controversy later comes off as deceitful.

We seem to use European countries as examples of being progressive for things like drug policies, legalizing prostitution, labour issues like working hours and vacation - and lately coalition governments......so I think the use of abortion regulations across all European countries should also be a valid example for discussion. Canada is just fine - as usual - but in the long term, ignorance of the rest of the world is not a good thing.

I don't think anybody here is going to stand up for ignorance, but knowing what other countries are doing and emulating them are two very different things. "But they do it in Europe" in itself is not an argument in favor of anything. Perhaps people would be more receptive if you explained what the benefit to Canada would be if we followed Europe's example. But remember that "if we don't do something, there might be controversy later..." is not going to work, because there *will* be controversy later, regardless.

-k

[Battletoads]

If this is true, it's right, because it's the only rational approach.

Otherwise, whether or not a person is convicted of murdering the unborn would depend entirely on the victim's declaration (honest or otherwise) as to her her decision about reproduction: murder if she were planning to keep it, not murder if she wasn't.

A fetus is not a person, thus the charge of murder cannot be laid, so an entirely new law would be needed to approach this.

Any attempt to claim the death of the fetus as murder would be used as a backdoor for the anti-abortionists to ban abortion.

[bush_cheney2004]

A fetus is not a person, thus the charge of murder cannot be laid, so an entirely new law would be needed to approach this.

Agreed...the legislation would be directed at "causing the death of a fetus", not murder.

Any attempt to claim the death of the fetus as murder would be used as a backdoor for the anti-abortionists to ban abortion.

..and similarly, it is used by the pro-abortionists as a scare tactic to prevent any legal definitions or protections for a fetus.

[Battletoads]

Agreed...the legislation would be directed at "causing the death of a fetus", not murder.

..and similarly, it is used by the pro-abortionists as a scare tactic to prevent any legal definitions or protections for a fetus.

Pro-abortionists? Is that some sort of new group that wants to mandate mandatory abortions for all? I'll have to look them up...

Edit: can't find any groups that I would qualify as "pro-abortionists" outside of some extreme fringe groups with no real presence in Canada.

Edited May 16, 2010 by Battletoads

[bush_cheney2004]

Pro-abortionists? Is that some sort of new group that wants to mandate mandatory abortions for all? I'll have to look them up...

Yes...it is as new as the "anti-abortionists" label or rhetoric, which would exclude any compromise on late term abortions or protections for a fetus.

[Battletoads]

Yes...it is as new as the "anti-abortionists" label or rhetoric, which would exclude any compromise on late term abortions or protections for a fetus.

Anti-abortionist: someone who opposes abortion, absolutely.

Sorry, but I am not a fan of the meaningless jargon terms like "pro-life" used decidedly to hide ones true views.

[bush_cheney2004]

Anti-abortionist: someone who opposes abortion, absolutely.

Sorry, but I am not a fan of the meaningless jargon terms like "pro-life" used decidedly to hide ones true views.

This game transcends whatever you are a fan of....choose your word weapons and sally forth.

[Michael Hardner]

This game transcends whatever you are a fan of....choose your word weapons and sally forth.

I'm a big fan of letting people name themselves, no matter what it sounds like to you.... (or me).

Edited May 16, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[Molly]

I think if you look at what other countries have done, they believe in the Woman's right to choose.....but once she has made her choice, there are restrictions that protect both the unborn child and the mother.....and for the record, I believe in that principle - choose...but there's a point where you should be expected to stick with it.

See, I just don't buy that at all.

The 'restrictions'- things like counselling, waiting periods, getting the permission of a committee, etc. create inconvenience, but they don't in any practical way restrict anyone from doing anything... so there is no 'protection for the unborn' beyond what exists here... and the notion of the restrictions offering 'protection' for mothers is insulting. Protection from what? From the freedom to make ones own medical/life choices without interference from people whose business it isn't?

[waldo]

since you wouldn't directly answer the question of why you put a 15-20 year timeline around "the debate" reopening... is this your reasoning... that within that period, "immoral" physicians will come forward?

a couple of your statements from the other running thread would seem to contradict your latest statement expressing a, "hope for keeping the status quo in Canada"; specifically:

you clearly want laws written today... you've framed it as a morality issue. You presume to speak for "the unborn", wanting to act as a protectorate for "the unborn". You again draw reference to so-called late-term abortions as the impetus for why laws are needed today; however, by your own admission, there is no problem today... your described "doctor morality" of today, remains intact!

in your estimation, when does a doctor, or anyone for that matter, become "immoral" when participating in the procedure; i.e. at what gestational period of time? Are you saying, for example, that 12 weeks would be moral, but say, 18 weeks would be immoral? What would you base that estimation upon?

As usual Waldo, you're all over the place - blathering a lot and saying nothing. I've arbitrarily picked a 15-20 year timeframe where something could happen that re-ignites the debate. Without legislation, there is nothing to prevent something contentious from happening. How about a case where 5 month old twins are aborted - healthy fetuses that die on respirators - for no reason other than the mother changed her mind. What if the media actually decides to play that up? All I'm saying is that if that day ever comes, it would be nice to know what the rest of the world has done.

the place, as you say, "I'm all over"... is your exact statements. Yes, your time frame was obviously arbitrary; however, other than making a hypothetical reference to "immoral doctors" coming forward, you've not established why it will take such a long period of time (arbitrary, or not), for your longed for debate. You've also not commented on why Harper Conservatives don't bring the issue forward, today.

of course, you also refuse to answer the questions put to you. Again, in regards your stated morality aspect, in your estimation, when does a doctor, or anyone for that matter, become "immoral" when participating in the procedure; i.e. at what gestational period of time? Are you saying, for example, that 12 weeks would be moral, but say, 18 weeks would be immoral? What would you base that estimation upon?

[Keepitsimple]

the place, as you say, "I'm all over"... is your exact statements. Yes, your time frame was obviously arbitrary; however, other than making a hypothetical reference to "immoral doctors" coming forward, you've not established why it will take such a long period of time (arbitrary, or not), for your longed for debate. You've also not commented on why Harper Conservatives don't bring the issue forward, today.

of course, you also refuse to answer the questions put to you. Again, in regards your stated morality aspect, in your estimation, when does a doctor, or anyone for that matter, become "immoral" when participating in the procedure; i.e. at what gestational period of time? Are you saying, for example, that 12 weeks would be moral, but say, 18 weeks would be immoral? What would you base that estimation upon?

You are hopeless Waldo.....you simply will not take any position on anything. As to your question on 12 or 18 weeks.....that's not for me to decide - it really isn't....as I said, a woman should be free to choose but personally, I believe that once she has made that choice, she should stick to it and there should be some sort of regulations to protect the unborn child and the mother. People much smarter than me (but perhaps not you) will have to decide, if it should ever come to that. Now Waldo....why can you simply never take a position - actually tell us where you stand - on anything? You are such a skittish little creature.....humerous, but a somewhat sorry, lost cause. C'mon Waldo - stand up - take a position on something!

[waldo]

the place, as you say, "I'm all over"... is your exact statements. Yes, your time frame was obviously arbitrary; however, other than making a hypothetical reference to "immoral doctors" coming forward, you've not established why it will take such a long period of time (arbitrary, or not), for your longed for debate. You've also not commented on why Harper Conservatives don't bring the issue forward, today.

of course, you also refuse to answer the questions put to you. Again, in regards your stated morality aspect, in your estimation, when does a doctor, or anyone for that matter, become "immoral" when participating in the procedure; i.e. at what gestational period of time? Are you saying, for example, that 12 weeks would be moral, but say, 18 weeks would be immoral? What would you base that estimation upon?

As to your question on 12 or 18 weeks.....that's not for me to decide - it really isn't....as I said, a woman should be free to choose but personally, I believe that once she has made that choice, she should stick to it and there should be some sort of regulations to protect the unborn child and the mother.

interesting, ... you'll broadly spout off about morality... but when challenged, won't take a defined position to explain, to support your moralistic bent. You'll moronically reprint an entire lengthy article on the European condition, but when challenged, won't take a defined position on either a single European country you would presume Canada to emulate, or you won't take a position on defining an overall encompassing European condition you would presume Canada to emulate. You'll rail on about the outrageous and uncalled for "demonization" of the Harper Conservatives over their G8 position, but when challenged you won't take a defined position on why the Harper Conservatives won't open the debate... you won't take a position on why the Harper Conservatives, presumably, don't agree (enough) with your concerns for the so-called rights of the unborn. Frankly, Simple... that's a whole lotta defined positions you refuse to take... when challenged!

as for your simpering, whimpering call for me to take a position, clearly you're obtuse to the point of comic relief... or... it's always gold, real gold, to watch your junkyard dog act come forward.

[WIP]

Just goes to show how the choice of words, if not done carefully, can inflame people - no matter where they stand on the issue. And I agree - if Canada ever re-opened the debate, the issue would not be completely settled. I hope that Canada can keep the status quo - which puts its trust in the morality of physicians. Sometime in the future, that morality will likely be challenged by physicians who might have diferring views - and what is to stop them from performing what many consider late-term abortions? It would only take a couple of sensationalized cases to create an impetus to put our "unwritten laws" into legislation. There was a doctor in Spain who gained notoriety for performing late-term abortions for 4000 euros for dubious reasons. Perhaps we'll be just fine with our hands-off approach - I hope so.....but I think we should be prepared with knowledge of what the rest of the world has gone through. I'm sorry but I just got tired of hearing that any restrictions on abortion was not "progessive" if not neanderthal. We seem to use European countries as examples of being progressive for things like drug policies, legalizing prostitution, labour issues like working hours and vacation - and lately coalition governments......so I think the use of abortion regulations across all European countries should also be a valid example for discussion. Canada is just fine - as usual - but in the long term, ignorance of the rest of the world is not a good thing.

Those European nations that you cited in the post-opener are anything but consistent in their application of abortion laws. Which should we follow, Sweden or Czech Republic?

The last time I got drawn into an abortion debate, I discovered from a little looking around, that the lack of an abortion law in Canada does not equal abortion-on-demand for women seeking an abortion. The way the anti-abortion freaks portray the issue, you would think there's thousands of women having abortions the day before their due to deliver a baby. There are many non-legal obstacles facing women seeking abortions in rural areas or provinces like PEI and Nova Scotia, which have no abortion clinics. I also recall a recent wikipage stating that Quebec has no doctors performing late term abortions, except in cases of medical emergency. It's ironic that many Canadian women actually have to cross the border to the U.S. for a late term abortion considering how big a political issue abortion it is down there.

Final point, every forum abortion debate ends up with pages of arguments from mostly men - who are never going to have go through pregnancy and childbirth btw, yet feel no qualms about trying to decide if and when pregnant women should be allowed to make this decision. Even in situations like late term -- when there is significant brain development and beginning to look like an actual baby, I am still more inclined to back off and let the one having the baby have the last word on this subject.

[Keepitsimple]

interesting, ... you'll broadly spout off about morality... but when challenged, won't take a defined position to explain, to support your moralistic bent. You'll moronically reprint an entire lengthy article on the European condition, but when challenged, won't take a defined position on either a single European country you would presume Canada to emulate, or you won't take a position on defining an overall encompassing European condition you would presume Canada to emulate. You'll rail on about the outrageous and uncalled for "demonization" of the Harper Conservatives over their G8 position, but when challenged you won't take a defined position on why the Harper Conservatives won't open the debate... you won't take a position on why the Harper Conservatives, presumably, don't agree (enough) with your concerns for the so-called rights of the unborn. Frankly, Simple... that's a whole lotta defined positions you refuse to take... when challenged!

as for your simpering, whimpering call for me to take a position, clearly you're obtuse to the point of comic relief... or... it's always gold, real gold, to watch your junkyard dog act come forward.

Waldo....let me try and remember how a previous poster described your inability to read....and your paranoia against taking a position on anything....let me see...oh ya, they called you "an idiot".

Edited May 17, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

whaaa! Simple... you could have left that drive-by insult without quoting my reply... and highlighting, and reinforcing the multiple points you refuse to take a position on.

interesting, ... Simple, you'll broadly spout off about morality... but when challenged, won't take a defined position to explain, to support your moralistic bent. You'll moronically reprint an entire lengthy article on the European condition, but when challenged, won't take a defined position on either a single European country you would presume Canada to emulate, or you won't take a position on defining an overall encompassing European condition you would presume Canada to emulate. You'll rail on about the outrageous and uncalled for "demonization" of the Harper Conservatives over their G8 position, but when challenged you won't take a defined position on why the Harper Conservatives won't open the debate... you won't take a position on why the Harper Conservatives, presumably, don't agree (enough) with your concerns for the so-called rights of the unborn. Frankly, Simple... that's a whole lotta defined positions you refuse to take... when challenged!

Simple, as for your simpering, whimpering call for me to take a position, clearly you're obtuse to the point of comic relief... or... it's always gold, real gold, to watch your junkyard dog act come forward.

[Keepitsimple]

interesting, ... you'll broadly spout off about morality... but when challenged, won't take a defined position to explain, to support your moralistic bent. You'll moronically reprint an entire lengthy article on the European condition, but when challenged, won't take a defined position on either a single European country you would presume Canada to emulate, or you won't take a position on defining an overall encompassing European condition you would presume Canada to emulate. You'll rail on about the outrageous and uncalled for "demonization" of the Harper Conservatives over their G8 position, but when challenged you won't take a defined position on why the Harper Conservatives won't open the debate... you won't take a position on why the Harper Conservatives, presumably, don't agree (enough) with your concerns for the so-called rights of the unborn. Frankly, Simple... that's a whole lotta defined positions you refuse to take... when challenged!

as for your simpering, whimpering call for me to take a position, clearly you're obtuse to the point of comic relief... or... it's always gold, real gold, to watch your junkyard dog act come forward.

[Keepitsimple]

interesting, ... you'll broadly spout off about morality... but when challenged, won't take a defined position to explain, to support your moralistic bent. You'll moronically reprint an entire lengthy article on the European condition, but when challenged, won't take a defined position on either a single European country you would presume Canada to emulate, or you won't take a position on defining an overall encompassing European condition you would presume Canada to emulate. You'll rail on about the outrageous and uncalled for "demonization" of the Harper Conservatives over their G8 position, but when challenged you won't take a defined position on why the Harper Conservatives won't open the debate... you won't take a position on why the Harper Conservatives, presumably, don't agree (enough) with your concerns for the so-called rights of the unborn. Frankly, Simple... that's a whole lotta defined positions you refuse to take... when challenged!

as for your simpering, whimpering call for me to take a position, clearly you're obtuse to the point of comic relief... or... it's always gold, real gold, to watch your junkyard dog act come forward.

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.