Are women in danger of losing their abortion rights?

[kimmy]

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'm not sure that there is a "problem" here.

Your example (and I made the same point a couple of pages ago) describes a situation that could theoretically happen and would be viewed as a gross outrage by probably almost everyone.

But it wouldn't happen.

In principle I agree with the idea that the infant's life is as deserving of legal protection moments before birth as it is moments afterward. In practice, no doctor would harm that infant regardless of whether it's legal.

Would Canadians really want to go through the conflict and controversy and strife of a public debate on the issue to prevent a situation that really isn't going to happen in the real world anyway? I'm not sure that's a productive use of Parliament's time and energy.

-k

[WIP]

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.

Exactly! Every so often, the crazies come bubbling up to the surface, but Harper is a shrewd political operative who realizes that the religious right base he is trying to cultivate, is not large enough or influential enough to make up for the losses suffered if the so-cons were set free to try to set social policies...like they are in the U.S. right now. If the Canadian religious right grows enough in size and influence, and the liberal press continues to wither away and be replaced by rightwing talkingheads; then abortion will become an issue here. Harper has to keep these bible thumpers onside for Conservative grassroots campaigning, so I expect that a Conservative majority government will see some bones thrown to them on abortion....but nothing as bold as what the tea party crazies are doing across the border right now.

Edited April 23, 2011 by WIP

[Molly]

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.

It is the "the best stance in the world" because the only people who are consulted are the people who are involved. Buttinskis get to take an appropriate 'long hike on a short pier'.

[bush_cheney2004]

... Harper has to keep these bible thumpers onside for Conservative grassroots campaigning, so I expect that a Conservative majority government will see some bones thrown to them on abortion....but nothing as bold as what the tea party crazies are doing across the border right now.

Well thank goodness for that! Nothing helps to frame and define Canadian political policy more than stark contrast with what those crazy Americans are/are not doing!

[Guest American Woman]

It is the "the best stance in the world" because the only people who are consulted are the people who are involved. Buttinskis get to take an appropriate 'long hike on a short pier'.

In theory, maybe, but not in practice. Hospitals can, and do, make their own decisions regarding whether they'll perform abortions or not, as do doctors, and in some instances, provinces; and it's excluded from the reciprocal billing agreement. Did you miss the part where I posted that women in Canada often end up carrying a pregnancy to term because of the inaccessibility of abortions in Canada? Where they end up going to the States? In theory it's one thing, in practice it's obviously another.

[bloodyminded]

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.

Of course it's contradictory. What isn't? But why make the perfect the enemy of the good?

Edited April 23, 2011 by bloodyminded

[August1991]

It is the "the best stance in the world" because the only people who are consulted are the people who are involved. Buttinskis get to take an appropriate 'long hike on a short pier'.

The problem with that argument is how to define who is involved.

If a gravely ill, elderly husband asked his wife to help him commit suicide, would you say that it is only a matter between the two of them, and no one else is involved? What if the couple had children?

Now then, what if the husband suffered from dementia and possibly wasn't aware of what he was requesting? Should the State intervene in such a case?

-----

Molly, the problem with the argument that abortion is solely a matter between a woman and her doctor flies in the face of many other situations where the State (the ultimate Buttinski, to use your term) intervenes.

Edited April 23, 2011 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

...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.

Very much indeed, as we have a scenario in which the very idea of consistent "abortion rights" are undermined by differing provincial health care capabilities and provider reluctance. As you know, it is my favorite retort to point out that several provinces send their abortion patients to the United States!

Edited April 23, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[August1991]

Did you miss the part where I posted that women in Canada often end up carrying a pregnancy to term because of the inaccessibility of abortions in Canada? Where they end up going to the States?

If I 'm not mistaken, there is no doctor in PEI or rural NS who will conduct abortions. Women in these areas must travel to Halifax.

[bush_cheney2004]

If I 'm not mistaken, there is no doctor in PEI or rural NS who will conduct abortions. Women in these areas must travel to Halifax.

Does this mean there are no "abortion rights" in PEI? If "abortion rights" only means the ability to get the desired procedure, then a Canadian could do so in not only Halifax, but also in Kenya.

[Guest American Woman]

Of course it's contradictory. What isn't? But why make the perfect the enemy of the good?

Huh??

When something is one thing in theory, and that's what's perceived as "the best in the world," and it's something else in practice, it's hardly the wonderful situation that you seem to think it is. And fyi, everything isn't contradictory like that. Considering the reality, I would see dealing with it as the better alternative to a hush-hush don't-bring-it-up attitude so nothing gets done about it. I'm sure the women in Canada who didn't have access to an abortion because of the restrictions in practice, even though they don't exist in theory, or had to travel to the States, or had to carry the pregnancy to term don't see it as "the best in the world."

[Molly]

In theory, maybe, but not in practice. Hospitals can, and do, make their own decisions regarding whether they'll perform abortions or not, as do doctors, and in some instances, provinces; and it's excluded from the reciprocal billing agreement. Did you miss the part where I posted that women in Canada often end up carrying a pregnancy to term because of the inaccessibility of abortions in Canada? Where they end up going to the States? In theory it's one thing, in practice it's obviously another.

The accessibility situation would not be improved by national harrassment legislation.

[August1991]

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.

The pro-choice viewpoint is that abortion at any moment of pregnancy is not illegal in Canada and I think that's why Molly, for example, defends this policy.

Because something is legal does not mean that everyone can or will do it. It may be legal to buy beer in a corner store in Quebec but that doesn't mean everybody does, or that everybody lives within five minutes of a corner store.

[bush_cheney2004]

The pro-choice viewpoint is that abortion at any moment of pregnancy is not illegal in Canada and I think that's why Molly, for example, defends this policy.

Well, I think we all know that the practical politics of this stance is that any restrictions on abortion procedures is perceived as the slippery slope to an outright ban.

Because something is legal does not mean that everyone can or will do it. It may be legal to buy beer in a corner store in Quebec but that doesn't mean everybody does, or that everybody lives within five minutes of a corner store.

OK, but the history of abortion law in Canada is twisted and backward just that way. Once the Americans "liberalized" their abortion policy, the corner store was just a short drive from home.

Edited April 23, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[bloodyminded]

Huh??

When something is one thing in theory, and that's what's perceived as "the best in the world," and it's something else in practice, it's hardly the wonderful situation that you seem to think it is. And fyi, everything isn't contradictory like that. Considering the reality, I would see dealing with it as the better alternative to a hush-hush don't-bring-it-up attitude so nothing gets done about it. I'm sure the women in Canada who didn't have access to an abortion because of the restrictions in practice, even though they don't exist in theory, or had to travel to the States, or had to carry the pregnancy to term don't see it as "the best in the world."

Huh??

When something is one thing in theory, and that's what's perceived as "the best in the world," and it's something else in practice, it's hardly the wonderful situation that you seem to think it is. And fyi, everything isn't contradictory like that. Considering the reality, I would see dealing with it as the better alternative to a hush-hush don't-bring-it-up attitude so nothing gets done about it. I'm sure the women in Canada who didn't have access to an abortion because of the restrictions in practice, even though they don't exist in theory, or had to travel to the States, or had to carry the pregnancy to term don't see it as "the best in the world."

Sigh.

I did not say, nor vaguely imply, that the situation in Canada is the best in the world.

I said the stance is the best in the world (I also said "arguably").

Eventually, I suppose you might one day assume that I really do mean the words that I write. We'll see.

[Molly]

Huh??

When something is one thing in theory, and that's what's perceived as "the best in the world," and it's something else in practice, it's hardly the wonderful situation that you seem to think it is. And fyi, everything isn't contradictory like that. Considering the reality, I would see dealing with it as the better alternative to a hush-hush don't-bring-it-up attitude so nothing gets done about it. I'm sure the women in Canada who didn't have access to an abortion because of the restrictions in practice, even though they don't exist in theory, or had to travel to the States, or had to carry the pregnancy to term don't see it as "the best in the world."

What 'hush-hush don't -bring-it-up attitude'? We appear to be speaking of it right now...

What do you propose needs to be done about it? Redundant laws?

And what countries do you percieve as the paragons?

[Mr.Canada]

Shouldn't women be more personally responsible in their sex lives? Using tax payer funded abortion as birth control is less then ideal.

[Molly]

Shouldn't women be more personally responsible in their sex lives? Using tax payer funded abortion as birth control is less then ideal.

Shouldn't men zip it or snip it?

[bloodyminded]

Shouldn't women be more personally responsible in their sex lives?

And men, yes?

Using tax payer funded abortion as birth control is less then ideal.

Until you discover a way to legislate sexual behaviour, we've got what we got.

[bush_cheney2004]

Shouldn't men zip it or snip it?

Men don't get pregnant!

[Guest American Woman]

The pro-choice viewpoint is that abortion at any moment of pregnancy is not illegal in Canada and I think that's why Molly, for example, defends this policy.

It's not much of a policy, nor is it much of a "right," if it's unattainable -- and the government is complicit in making it unattainable. It's not a policy I would defend, believing as I do. I would be up in arms about the exclusion from the reciprocal billing agreement. I care much more about practice than I do theory.

Because something is legal does not mean that everyone can or will do it. It may be legal to buy beer in a corner store in Quebec but that doesn't mean everybody does, or that everybody lives within five minutes of a corner store.

This is true, but the government isn't complicit in making beer difficult to get. I suppose it's easy to not deal with it if it's just unavailable; I can't understand why people aren't raising more of a fuss about it. I don't agree with the Tea Party's stance, but at least they're voicing it. Some here see that as a bad thing. "Can't rock the boat!" As I said, I see the "reality" as more desirable, more important, than one's "stance."

[Guest American Woman]

OK, but the history of abortion law in Canada is twisted and backward just that way. Once the Americans "liberalized" their abortion policy, the corner store was just a short drive from home.

Exactly. Which is why "rocking the boat" is a good thing. It's why being vocal is a good thing. It's how things get done.

[Guest American Woman]

Men don't get pregnant!

But they make people pregnant.

[Mr.Canada]

And men, yes?

Since women are in charge of their own bodies, I'll assume that they're also in charge of what goes into it. So therefore they should take a more active role then just flat backing or bending over or riding for joy.

Until you discover a way to legislate sexual behaviour, we've got what we got.

Since an abortion is an elective surgery perhaps it should be paid for by the patient.

[gordiecanuk]

Harper won't touch this debate, unless he gets a majority...then the many Trosts of the CPC will push hard to have abortion back in the criminal code.