Are women in danger of losing their abortion rights?

[Molly]

You're arguing a non-issue. I don't know why you're hung up on stillbirths, but we're talking about the choice to abort a fetus here. I think it's reasonable, even as a supporter of pro-choice that a person who waits until the third trimester ought to be limited in their ability to secure an abortion. Clinics won't perform them and most medical doctors will not perform them, unless the mother's life is in danger. They are exceedingly rare as well, so there's no point in even discussing it. Making a law limiting someone's ability to have a late-term abortion would simply be codifying what already happens.

To codify what already happens is to fix what ain't broke... and thereby create problems that precious few people foresee unless they are in that goo. This is not a matter of theory, but of horrible stuff that happens to real people.

Now I find messing with that decision 'late term' or third trimester to be the most reprehensible of all, because the folks who are in that spot are already the most vulnerable among us.

Until someone can find me a case, or two or three, of perfectly viable healthy infants of healthy mothers being murdered with impunity seconds before they would be born, I find it reprehensible to write law presuming it, only to force people who already have their backs up against it to jump through unnecessary hoops, solely because some truly evil people can't imagine themselves ever falling into that position...

The devastated mother who is soon to give birth to a child with no brain doesn't need Shady or anyone else telling her his preferences and demanding that she provide the paperwork to show she's complying! It's absolutely inhuman to do that.

I'll go one further than that: Nobody needs whack-job right-to-lifers running interference on basic prenatal care (special focus on high-risk pregnancies) to prevent mothers getting the information they need to make informed and timely decisions. Bad enough now where every day later makes the practical situation more difficult, but even worse if there was some legal cap, too.

[Evening Star]

Cool, Smallc. For some reason, I had you pegged as leaning towards neoliberalism on economics, in a Paul Martin sort of way. What is perhaps ironic is that, on paper, the current Liberal platform is pretty much my ideal platform. However, based on the parties' track records in the last Parliament, the leaders' debate, and my local candidates, I also voted for and am volunteering with the NDP.

(Tbf, I guess Paul Martin wasn't even all that doctrinaire.)

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 23, 2011 by Evening Star

[Guest American Woman]

Until someone can find me a case, or two or three, of perfectly viable healthy infants of healthy mothers being murdered with impunity seconds before they would be born, I find it reprehensible to write law presuming it, only to force people who already have their backs up against it to jump through unnecessary hoops, solely because some truly evil people can't imagine themselves ever falling into that position...

It's not just a matter of not imagining themselves ever falling into that position ... some know that they never will fall into that position. Shady, for example.

The devastated mother who is soon to give birth to a child with no brain doesn't need Shady or anyone else telling her his preferences and demanding that she provide the paperwork to show she's complying! It's absolutely inhuman to do that.

I think inducing a birth and not applying life-saving techniques would be the normal route to go under such circumstances, wouldn't it? I think there comes a point where "abortion" as such is no longer a 'necessary' procedure. Perhaps I'm wrong?

I'll go one further than that: Nobody needs whack-job right-to-lifers running interference on basic prenatal care (special focus on high-risk pregnancies) to prevent mothers getting the information they need to make informed and timely decisions. Bad enough now where every day later makes the practical situation more difficult, but even worse if there was some legal cap, too.

I agree with you 100%. The very people who insist that abortions take place within a specific time frame are the very ones trying to do the most to prevent that from happening. If they truly are upset that abortions are taking place later in pregnancies, they are being counter-productive to their own desires.

[Guest American Woman]

ToadBrother, on 22 April 2011 - 04:54 PM, said: It creates a bizarre dichotomy in which you can lay a murder charge if the person destroying the fetus had ill intent as opposed to getting a cheque from the HMO to perform the procedure.

Or based on the woman's a priori decision--which could be a lie as easily as the truth--of whether she was planning to terminate or to continue the pregnancy.

Furthermore, one's a violent act while the other is a medical procedure.

There are other situations where one scenario would be murder vs a doctor getting a check from the HMO for performing medical duties, too; for example, it's not murder for a doctor to withdraw life support at a family's request but it would be murder if someone strangled/shot/stabbed the person, resulting in their death -- and that would be true whether the family wanted life support continued or not.

Edited April 23, 2011 by American Woman

[Smallc]

Cool, Smallc. For some reason, I had you pegged as leaning towards neoliberalism on economics, in a Paul Martin sort of way.

I do in many ways, but I'm not opposed to other philosophies either...if they work.

[Molly]

I think inducing a birth and not applying life-saving techniques would be the normal route to go under such circumstances, wouldn't it? I think there comes a point where "abortion" as such is no longer a 'necessary' procedure. Perhaps I'm wrong?

I haven't a clue, and it doesn't matter. The circumstances folks might face are myriad.

The point is that anyone talking law is generally assuming something even beyond healthy mother/healthy baby-- leaning hard toward assuming that childbirth and pregnancy have negligible short term personal costs and non-existent long term consequences. That blind spot is false, offensive, and destructive.

[cybercoma]

To codify what already happens is to fix what ain't broke... and thereby create problems that precious few people foresee unless they are in that goo. This is not a matter of theory, but of horrible stuff that happens to real people.

[snip]

I couldn't agree more with your entire reply.

[Guest American Woman]

I haven't a clue, and it doesn't matter. The circumstances folks might face are myriad.

I think it does matter. Not only are the circumstances people might face myriad, but the traits/personalities/characteristics et al of women who get pregnant are also myriad. You are giving women/doctors/human nature too much credit if you believe that there aren't women/doctors who would take advantage of an unlimited "right" to perform an abortion even as the woman, as you put it, is "soon to give birth."

If the fetus no longer needs the woman's/'host' body to survive, then it's no longer an issue of the woman having the right to make her own decisions regarding her body. If the fetus has reached the point of viable 'delivery,' then it seems that it would be/should be the way to go. Determining whether or not a full term baby should be born is a different matter than deciding if one wants to continue with a pregnancy.

The point is that anyone talking law is generally assuming something even beyond healthy mother/healthy baby-- leaning hard toward assuming that childbirth and pregnancy have negligible short term personal costs and non-existent long term consequences. That blind spot is false, offensive, and destructive.

I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at here. How does what you are saying fit in with inducing labor vs. performing an abortion once the fetus is developed to the point of 'soon to be delivered?' As I said, it's no longer a 'what a woman does with her body' issue at this stage, so why the need to provide 'free will' regarding an abortion at this point? If there is a medical reason, then fine, but I see nothing intrinsically wrong with the legal need to have a medical reason to perform an abortion at this stage of pregnancy.

[Molly]

You are giving women/doctors/human nature too much credit if you believe that there aren't women/doctors who would take advantage of an unlimited "right" to perform an abortion even as the woman, as you put it, is "soon to give birth."

It would take no more than a case or two of such evil mothers and doctors murdering healthy soon-to be-born children on a whim to so outrage the public that restrictions would be easy to enact....

so where are they? If any at all of these cases exist in Canada, why have the highly-motivated and very well-funded anti-choicers failed to present them?

[Guest American Woman]

It would take no more than a case or two of such evil mothers and doctors murdering healthy soon-to be-born children on a whim to so outrage the public that restrictions would be easy to enact....

So why give the public the chance to become so enraged? Why not have perfectly acceptable restrictions in place to prevent the possibility?

so where are they? If any at all of these cases exist in Canada, why have the highly-motivated and very well-funded anti-choicers failed to present them?

Perhaps because those involved are cunning enough not to have gone public with it? -- or perhaps it hasn't happened. I'm not saying it has, just that the possibility exists. Fact is, just because we aren't aware of abuse doesn't mean it's not going on. If none is, then all the better. But what's wrong with having a law in place that would make it more difficult to occur, as it does nothing in regards to a woman losing the right to have control over her body?

[Molly]

I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at here. How does what you are saying fit in with inducing labor vs. performing an abortion once the fetus is developed to the point of 'soon to be delivered?'

It doesn't. That was your digression, not mine.

It has only to do with the outright inability for you, me, or anyone else to perfectly predict what someone might find themselves facing over the course of a pregnancy.

[Molly]

... as it does nothing in regards to a woman losing the right to have control over her body?

That's a false, and frankly naive assumptioon.

[Guest American Woman]

That's a false, and frankly naive assumptioon.

There's nothing false or naive about it. At that point in the pregnancy, the issue isn't having control over her body as continuing the pregnancy is not what's at stake; it's delivery vs. abortion, and that doesn't affect the woman's control over her body. Either way, she is no longer carrying the fetus. She retains control over her body.

The abortion issue isn't about a woman's right to have sole control over the situation; it's about a woman's right to have control over her body. At the 'delivery as a viable option' stage, it's not about that right any more as that right is/has been exercised.

[Mr.Canada]

Nothing is going to change. Why waste your time having a useless argument about something that will always be how it is now?

[ToadBrother]

Nothing is going to change. Why waste your time having a useless argument about something that will always be how it is now?

My goodness, Mr. C! What a rational position! Color me impressed. There is a pragmatist somewhere inside of you.

[Guest American Woman]

My goodness, Mr. C! What a rational position! Color me impressed. There is a pragmatist somewhere inside of you.

Or perhaps he is a staunch supporter of conservatives and doesn't want issues that might result in less support for them discussed/brought to light. Better to dismiss such issues with a cavalier 'nothing will ever change' response, even though he knows nothing of the sort, than to address them and call attention to them. 'Nothing will ever change, so don't worry, vote Conservative.'

[ToadBrother]

Or perhaps he is a staunch supporter of conservatives and doesn't want issues that might result in less support for them discussed/brought to light. Better to dismiss such issues with a cavalier 'nothing will ever change' response, even though he knows nothing of the sort, than to address them and call attention to them. 'Nothing will ever change, so don't worry, vote Conservative.'

Harper isn't going to pull the pin on this grenade. His party is not just the Reform party in disguise. There are a lot of PCs there, and he'd risk his own caucus.

[Battletoads]

The Cons, against government interference... Unless it enforces their vast number of backwards social beliefs.

Edited April 23, 2011 by Battletoads

[TimG]

Or perhaps he is a staunch supporter of conservatives and doesn't want issues that might result in less support for them discussed/brought to light.

The number of conservatives that support what the government is doing on this issue is small. It is as one of sacrifices that has to be made to create a 'big tent' right wing party that can form a government.

[bloodyminded]

To codify what already happens is to fix what ain't broke... and thereby create problems that precious few people foresee unless they are in that goo. This is not a matter of theory, but of horrible stuff that happens to real people.

Now I find messing with that decision 'late term' or third trimester to be the most reprehensible of all, because the folks who are in that spot are already the most vulnerable among us.

Until someone can find me a case, or two or three, of perfectly viable healthy infants of healthy mothers being murdered with impunity seconds before they would be born, I find it reprehensible to write law presuming it, only to force people who already have their backs up against it to jump through unnecessary hoops, solely because some truly evil people can't imagine themselves ever falling into that position...

The devastated mother who is soon to give birth to a child with no brain doesn't need Shady or anyone else telling her his preferences and demanding that she provide the paperwork to show she's complying! It's absolutely inhuman to do that.

I'll go one further than that: Nobody needs whack-job right-to-lifers running interference on basic prenatal care (special focus on high-risk pregnancies) to prevent mothers getting the information they need to make informed and timely decisions. Bad enough now where every day later makes the practical situation more difficult, but even worse if there was some legal cap, too.

You have perfectly summed up why Canada's abortion stance remains, arguably, the best in the world.

[Guest American Woman]

You have perfectly summed up why Canada's abortion stance remains, arguably, the best in the world

???

How does Canada's abortion stance differ from other similar nations?

[August1991]

How does Canada's abortion stance differ from other similar nations?

At present, Canada has in effect no abortion law at all.

This means that a woman could choose to abort a few seconds before birth and the act would be perfectly legal. If, OTOH, she were to smother the child a few seconds after birth, she could be charged with murder.

Some might find my example inflammatory (in a debate already charged with emotion) but that's Canada's "abortion stance", to use your apt phrase.

-----

This situation exists because teh Supreme Court struck down our previous abortion law and in the intervening 20 years or so, no government has been able/willing to present a new one.

In Canada, we're very good at ignoring certain problems or pretending that they don't exist.

[RNG]

This situation exists because teh Supreme Court struck down our previous abortion law and in the intervening 20 years or so, no government has been able/willing to present a new one.

In Canada, we're very good at ignoring certain problems or pretending that they don't exist.

I guess I don't see this as a problem. Even if the patients can't be trusted, I don't believe one could find a doctor willing to do an abortion at an extremely late stage without a medical reason.

[August1991]

There are other situations where one scenario would be murder vs a doctor getting a check from the HMO for performing medical duties, too; for example, it's not murder for a doctor to withdraw life support at a family's request but it would be murder if someone strangled/shot/stabbed the person, resulting in their death -- and that would be true whether the family wanted life support continued or not.

This is a very good point and I think is far too often ignored in discussions about abortion.

As a society, we already condone many actions that amount to murder if we are honest with ourselves. Our troups are in Afghanistan and Libya now. What are they doing there if not committing murder on occasion? Our politicians regularly make budget decisions that, in effect, mean that one road is more dangerous than another and hence a fatal car accident is more likely.

Whether a doctor pulls a plug or someone dies because of inadequate care due to budget constraints, the end result is that people die.

To argue that abortion is wrong because it is murder strikes me as mindfully incoherent. As kimmy would say, it's shoddy reasoning.

[Guest American Woman]

At present, Canada has in effect no abortion law at all.

This means that a woman could choose to abort a few seconds before birth and the act would be perfectly legal. If, OTOH, she were to smother the child a few seconds after birth, she could be charged with murder.

Since when?

Many anti-choice and misinformed individuals would have Canadians believe that a woman in Canada can access abortion services at any point during the nine months of pregnancy. This belief is hugely inaccurate [...] since abortion services after 20 weeks are not easily available in Canada, many women who seek an abortion at this point must either travel to another province or to the United States, or must continue to carry the pregnancy to term. The site also says: Other women need to access abortion services past 20 weeks because of extremely long wait-times [...]Late-term Abortion in Canada

Some might find my example inflammatory (in a debate already charged with emotion) but that's Canada's "abortion stance", to use your apt phrase.

I don't see your example as all that inflammatory, but I just don't see it as the way things are. I personally agree with limits on the stage an abortion can be performed "at will," so to speak. When it ceases to be about the woman's choice regarding her body, and simply becomes her choice regarding the birth/situation, it becomes a different matter, and it sounds as if that's the reality in Canada.

-----

This situation exists because teh Supreme Court struck down our previous abortion law and in the intervening 20 years or so, no government has been able/willing to present a new one.

In Canada, we're very good at ignoring certain problems or pretending that they don't exist.

According to this site, Canada is one of only three countries in the world with no laws restricting abortion. Because of that, Canada serves as a respected role model for abortion care internationally. Yet if it's in theory only, and not in practice, it does seem more of a situation as you describe it than anything else. Hardly a "role model." The same site says: [...] D&X abortion technique is rarely if ever used in Canada. Late term abortions done in Canada are generally performed via induction of labour. I don't get that. How is an "abortion" done "via labor?" I have been taking the stance that inducing labor would be the correct route to go at that stage, and withholding life support in extreme cases, so I'm assuming that's what's done in Canada, but how is that "abortion?"

The site also states: Since abortion services after 20 weeks are not always readily accessible in all parts of Canada, women are sometimes referred to clinics in the United States (Kansas, Washington State, and Colorado).

It all sounds very contradictory to me, and hardly "the best [stance] in the world," or more to the point, the best actual situation in the world.