Are women in danger of losing their abortion rights?

capricorn · April 22, 2011

It's looking much like any other country in history where a zealot rose to power and wiped out dissenters through one means or the other...

The way things are going, it looks like the Canadian voter is playing Harper's game.

Gulags and concentration camps come to mind...

Obsessed much?

cybercoma · April 22, 2011

If they get a majority, I hope you guys are right.

Something tells me, however, that he is chomping at the bit for a majority, so the can pass exactly this type of legislation. Otherwise, he should be able to make a minority government work, show that he's a strong leader, and earn a landslide majority in the process. Instead, he has shown nothing but contempt for parliament, been inflammatory to the other parties, and is now all but begging for a majority.

Look, I voted for the Conservatives because I believed they were going to clean up Parliament. It seems to me, as well, that they could have if they wanted to. Many say the minority governments screwed that up for them. However, the Liberals would have been wise to hop on board any kind of legislation that increased accountability and transparency. Instead, we got something very different with Harper. He could have brought accountability and transparency, but he did the exact opposite. I really don't feel he can be trusted. While he may not introduce socially conservative policies with a majority, my complete lack of trust for him makes me question that.

Again, I hope I'm wrong, truly.

kimmy · April 22, 2011

Others are statists, who believe in intensifying government regulation on intensely personal issues.

I know you believe there's a dichotomy in the logic of "rugged individualists" who support restriction on abortion access. However, if one believes that a fetus should be considered a person (in a legal sense) then abortion legislation ceases to be a matter of "government regulation on personal issues".

-k

bloodyminded · April 22, 2011

I know you believe there's a dichotomy in the logic of "rugged individualists" who support restriction on abortion access. However, if one believes that a fetus should be considered a person (in a legal sense) then abortion legislation ceases to be a matter of "government regulation on personal issues".

-k

Yes, I understand, and I was just taking the micky out.

But this issue aside, I think it a virtual truism that those who complain about "big government" and the "nanny state" are often disposed to change their tune on particular issues, belying their ostensible libertarian philosophy. What "big government" often means is "lower my taxes!", as if there are no other measurements of "big government."

Rick · April 22, 2011

If they get a majority, I hope you guys are right.

Something tells me, however, that he is chomping at the bit for a majority, so the can pass exactly this type of legislation. Otherwise, he should be able to make a minority government work, show that he's a strong leader, and earn a landslide majority in the process. Instead, he has shown nothing but contempt for parliament, been inflammatory to the other parties, and is now all but begging for a majority.

Look, I voted for the Conservatives because I believed they were going to clean up Parliament. It seems to me, as well, that they could have if they wanted to. Many say the minority governments screwed that up for them. However, the Liberals would have been wise to hop on board any kind of legislation that increased accountability and transparency. Instead, we got something very different with Harper. He could have brought accountability and transparency, but he did the exact opposite. I really don't feel he can be trusted. While he may not introduce socially conservative policies with a majority, my complete lack of trust for him makes me question that.

Again, I hope I'm wrong, truly.

You're not wrong. Well unless you would make the same mistake and vote for him again.

That whole fool me once shame on you...fool me twice thing...

Evening Star · April 22, 2011

I voted NDP

I don't know if this should surprise me but it does...

cybercoma · April 22, 2011

I know you believe there's a dichotomy in the logic of "rugged individualists" who support restriction on abortion access. However, if one believes that a fetus should be considered a person (in a legal sense) then abortion legislation ceases to be a matter of "government regulation on personal issues".

-k

Judith Jarvis Thompson's violin-player analogy fits with the argument that a fetus is a "person". It would be awfully nice of you to stay plugged into the violinist for 9 months until he recovered, but by no means should you be legally required to because you ought to have the freedom to do with your body as you choose. If a woman finds herself unintentionally pregnant, she does not lose the right to her body. This "person" in her has taken up its place in her body against her will. She tries to show that there is no higher moral imperative to keeping someone alive when it undermines your freedom and control over your body. There is an imperative against killing someone and that's where her analogy, some claim falls apart. However, she doesn't actually advocate for late-term abortions, where a fetus would otherwise be able to survive on its own. The debate really hinges on a person's right to have autonomy over their body.

bloodyminded · April 22, 2011

I don't know if this should surprise me but it does...

Smallc is not a doctrinaire voter. Any way he voted would not surprise me (except Bloc, but that's a different category), as I've heard him discussing the relative merits of each of the big three many times.

Smallc · April 22, 2011

I don't know if this should surprise me but it does...

It shouldn't. I've never voted anything but NDP in Manitoba. I'd probably usually vote Liberal federally, but they haven't given me what I need to see.

I voted Conservative in 2008 and in the November 2010 by-election, and now I've voted NDP, because I can't stand the way so many Conservatives keep making excuses for their party. Also, the way they keep stomping on our parliamentary traditions (not the the NDP are great supporters of our institutions), I just couldn't bring myself to vote for them right now.

I've been having debates with rabid right wingers on Charles Adler's Facebook page recently, and, I realized that those people just aren't me. Now, I realize that not all CPC supporters are like that, but on the web and in my own community, I just see too much of it. I mean, for God sakes, many of them are birthers and xenophobes (among other things), and they do nothing but parrot the talking points when they aren't being those things. At the risk I might again change my mind, I voted NDP today, even if their positons don't totally line up with mine.

I'm not scared of the NDP, because I have no reason to believe that they'd govern any differently than the NDP have in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, or Nova Scotia.

Edited April 22, 2011 by Smallc

Molly · April 22, 2011

Maybe not but having won by over 18,000 votes last time around he'll probably keep his seat.

No, no, no. He didn't win by 18,000 votes. He won with 18000 votes. Huge difference.

That riding has been all over the map politically, and in 2006 was an extraordinarily close 4-way race. Without Nettie Wiebe (NDP) to keep him honest, he had a little more room to breathe last time, but if he loses his seat after this debacle it should surprise no one.

kimmy · April 22, 2011

Judith Jarvis Thompson's violin-player analogy fits with the argument that a fetus is a "person". It would be awfully nice of you to stay plugged into the violinist for 9 months until he recovered, but by no means should you be legally required to because you ought to have the freedom to do with your body as you choose. If a woman finds herself unintentionally pregnant, she does not lose the right to her body. This "person" in her has taken up its place in her body against her will. She tries to show that there is no higher moral imperative to keeping someone alive when it undermines your freedom and control over your body. There is an imperative against killing someone and that's where her analogy, some claim falls apart. However, she doesn't actually advocate for late-term abortions, where a fetus would otherwise be able to survive on its own. The debate really hinges on a person's right to have autonomy over their body.

I don't really care to participate in that sort of debate.

My point is that while Bloody might be completely accurate in pointing out the irony of "less government!" types who support legislation against marijuana or who want kids to say the Lord's Prayer each morning in school or so on, abortion is (in the view of many people of a variety of political and philosophical backgrounds) not simply a matter of personal choice.

-k

Bryan · April 22, 2011

Yeah, it must be the breast exams, or the referrals to doctors, or other such controversial PP activities.

You think that's why most CBC viewers want it to be defunded?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2011/04/planned-parenthood-do-you-think-the-tories-should-cut-its-funding.html

(as of 4pm Central, April 22/2011):

Do you agree with the Tories decision to cut funding to Planned Parenthood?
Strongly agree 57.05% (4,509 votes)

Agree 2.58% (204 votes)

Neither agree nor disagree 1.01% (80 votes)

Disagree 1.75% (138 votes)

Strongly disagree 37.61% (2,972 votes)

Total Votes: 7,903

Edited April 22, 2011 by Bryan

Molly · April 22, 2011

Very few things are universally acknowledged to be no one else's business... Forced genital mutilation, for instance, is justified as being a matter of community morality, and thus not abusivee of individual rights.

However, if you are the one facing an abortion decision, you will likely take someone else's self-appointed interest as having no weight, even if they've managed to make their interest official in law. It is simply an unwelcome, unjustified, inhumane intrusion-- a personal offense-- an assault.

bloodyminded · April 22, 2011

You think that's why most CBC viewers want it to be defunded?

???

Because of breast eaxms?

No. I was joking.

I'm guessing everyone else knew that instantly.

Shady · April 22, 2011

Just... sticking the extremely unwelcome public nose into ^rivate and personal stuff that's absolutely none of your G-D business.

How so? It's publicly funded. Pay for it yourself if you don't want abortion scrutinized. Nonetheless, the privacy issue has nothing to do with the scientific/moral problems with the killing of unborn children.

Shady · April 22, 2011

There is (objectively) no "so-called" about it. It exists, even though you disagree with it.

It's not about some right to choose in general. Every woman has a right to choose. They choose what they wear, go to work, who they marry, or not marry, what they eat, etc, etc. What people like you refer to is a right to choose to kill an unborn child. There is no such right to choose to kill another human being. Deal with it.

Evening Star · April 22, 2011

I hadn't read this before: http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

Thanks for the tip.

Judith Jarvis Thompson's violin-player analogy fits with the argument that a fetus is a "person". It would be awfully nice of you to stay plugged into the violinist for 9 months until he recovered, but by no means should you be legally required to because you ought to have the freedom to do with your body as you choose. If a woman finds herself unintentionally pregnant, she does not lose the right to her body. This "person" in her has taken up its place in her body against her will. She tries to show that there is no higher moral imperative to keeping someone alive when it undermines your freedom and control over your body. There is an imperative against killing someone and that's where her analogy, some claim falls apart. However, she doesn't actually advocate for late-term abortions, where a fetus would otherwise be able to survive on its own. The debate really hinges on a person's right to have autonomy over their body.

Edited April 22, 2011 by Evening Star

Bryan · April 22, 2011

No. I was joking.

I got the joke.

My point is people are taking the position that being anti-abortion is an obvious vote loser. At the same time, a larger percentage supports the idea of cutting planned parenthood funding than actually supports the Conservatives. If it's "obviously not" abortion, what then?

Smallc · April 22, 2011

How so? It's publicly funded. Pay for it yourself if you don't want abortion scrutinized.

And so this is why the CPC should never get a majority, I suppose. Because, amongst the supporters at least, there really is a hidden agenda.

Edited April 22, 2011 by Smallc

blueblood · April 22, 2011

And so this is why the CPC should never get a majority, I suppose. Because, amongst the supporters at least, there really is a hidden agenda.

There is a hidden agenda for all the parties. It wouldn't put it past me if some ndp supporters wanted canada to have a system like scandinavia or western europe. In all reality, both forms of implementing the "hidden agenda" would be political suicide.

That's why a lot of canadians don't support the ndp.

Evening Star · April 22, 2011

There is a hidden agenda for all the parties. It wouldn't put it past me if some ndp supporters wanted canada to have a system like scandinavia or western europe.

There's nothing hidden about that agenda.

blueblood · April 22, 2011

There's nothing hidden about that agenda.

And that's an agenda many people don't want.

Smallc · April 22, 2011

And that's an agenda many people don't want.

That's an agenda many people want too. It would help me, given that about half of my customers don't have jobs....but I'm not sure which system is better. Neither seems terrible.

Smallc · April 22, 2011

There is a hidden agenda for all the parties.

BTW, I don't count you among those as part of the hidden agenda.

blueblood · April 22, 2011

That's an agenda many people want too. It would help me, given that about half of my customers don't have jobs....but I'm not sure which system is better. Neither seems terrible.

Its not terrible when people buy into it. In scandinavia and western europe (except for the uk and ireland) they have a different culture than in north america, that culture has gone on for a very long time. They don't like the fact of some people getting ahead and some people don't. Over here that's fine. In north america, the govt is viewed as something that creates an environment for people to do well. Over there the govt ensures everyone isn't in poverty or tries very hard to do so. It works over there because people there don't mind living without luxuries that we enjoy and don't mind paying very high tax. Over here I don't think that it would work because north america is far more entrepreneurial in attitude than over there. We have a free to succeed and free to fail, and it has worked for us in north america. However I think big govt is unsustainable and there are examples of that around the world. For that reason I wouldn't vote ndp.

Fareed zakaria talked about that some time back in his how to fix america special.