Conservative MP brings abortion back into the spotlight

[Guest Derek L]

Do some research, Start a new thread....

Why, have you become a moderator? Like the NDP, you wish to stifle discussion on one’s perceived morality? We’re discussing an MP’s ability to break ranks from a party’s given policy……..In the OP, a Tory MP can bring up abortion and face no negative consequences from his/her party, but an NDP MP can’t side with the Government (and his constituents?) on the LGR.

[Vendetta]

One part of the discussion that never seems to happen, is why the man has no say at all over if he wants to be a father. It was mentioned that we can't have a man purposely using a leaky condom and then forcing the woman to have his baby, but what about if a woman sabotages birth control to get pregnant without the man's consent? He has no "choice" but to pay "child support" for the next 18-25 years of his life, that may or may not even be spent on the support of that child. Maybe his money goes to support the woman's drug habit, or to pay for her to entertain her new boyfriends. Maybe men ought to be able to "abort " their financial responsibilities to supporting a pregnancy that they did not want? Maybe that choice should be limited to the first trimester, can't have deadbeat dads wanting to abort their financial responsibilities to the children they decided to have. I know that is pretty controversial but why don't men get any say in whether they want to be a parent? You can say "well if they don't want to have a child, don't have sex", but wouldn't that apply equally to females? The man should not be able to decide what a woman does with her body, the choice to keep or abort a pregnancy should be the woman's alone, but maybe the man should also have a choice on whether or not to participate in raising the resulting child, since he has no choice in whether the pregnancy should be allowed to continue?

[punked]

So did the NDP decide at their last convention to reintroduce another LGR?

I was not at the last one so I could not tell you. Although I can tell if they didn't there will be a debate on it next convention and the Whip will come depending on what is decided. This is the main reason why the MP left is because he knows that he will be held to what the grassroots decided we will run on next election.

[punked]

One part of the discussion that never seems to happen, is why the man has no say at all over if he wants to be a father.

No that part of discussion did happen. It happened at the Supreme court. The ruling was the man gets no say. Don't like it take it up with Harper.

I will also point out on the abortion bill that every single NDP MP voted against. This was not a whipped vote. All NDP MPs are pro choice sorry to break the news to you guys.

Edited April 29, 2012 by punked

[Vendetta]

No that part of discussion did happen. It happened at the Supreme court. The ruling was the man gets no say. Don't like it take it up with Harper.

I really don't care enough, and even if I did I would never take anything up with Harper. I can't stand the man, he makes my skin crawl. I just think that its interesting that nobody cares at all about the rights of men in this context. If the woman is the only one who gets to decide if a pregnancy results in a child then maybe she should also bear the financial weight of that choice. Does anyone really think that no woman ever gets pregnant on purpose to try and "keep" a man, or the financial support she expects him to provide?

[Vendetta]

No that part of discussion did happen. It happened at the Supreme court. The ruling was the man gets no say. Don't like it take it up with Harper.

I will also point out on the abortion bill that every single NDP MP voted against. This was not a whipped vote. All NDP MPs are pro choice sorry to break the news to you guys.

I am pro-choice, and I support the NDP position. I just question whether both genders should have a choice to make. Right now one gender has the choice made for them, so I find that situation a little sexist and unfair.

[punked]

I am pro-choice, and I support the NDP position. I just question whether both genders should have a choice to make. Right now one gender has the choice made for them, so I find that situation a little sexist and unfair.

I understand that but that was the ruling based on our Charter in 1989. The only way you might be able to change this is to open the Charter.

[-TSS-]

We here in Europe have the 26-week rule regarding abortions. I wonder whether such a rule is in force in the liberal US states.

[Argus]

I think you really have to follow the history of this ruling. A year later in Tremblay v. Daigle the court found that the fetus is not a person and that you would have to reopen the Charter to make it one.

Having just looked into this case you cite, it appears the court decided this under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights, and the civil code.

The Court also declined to address the question of fetal rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, noting that the Charter applies to government; it has no force in legal disputes between private citizens, which was the case in Tremblay v. Daigle.

Again, there's no evidence that regulating abortion would require a change to the Charter.

[g_bambino]

Ah, i dont think the fetus/baby is delivered in the usual sense before it is 'aborted', so maybe not.

I think you mean: an abortion is not carried out in the same manner as a premature delivery; the baby is killed, despite the possibility that it could survive outside the womb. Correct? If so, then, that doesn't seem right at all.

[cybercoma]

I think you mean: an abortion is not carried out in the same manner as a premature delivery; the baby is killed, despite the possibility that it could survive outside the womb. Correct? If so, then, that doesn't seem right at all.

I would like to see any proof whatsoever that this actually happens. To my understanding, less than 1% of abortion happen after 20 weeks. Survival rate at 24 weeks is still only 50/50. I just can't see many, if any, doctors carrying out abortions on foetuses that could otherwise survive.

[g_bambino]

I would like to see any proof whatsoever that this actually happens. To my understanding, less than 1% of abortion happen after 20 weeks. Survival rate at 24 weeks is still only 50/50. I just can't see many, if any, doctors carrying out abortions on foetuses that could otherwise survive.

I don't know about rates nor all the medical facts. But, in the absence of law, the decision on the part of the doctor is entirely a personal and moral one; if a doctor decides otherwise, is he held accountable in any way other than being scowled at by those who disagree with his choice? In other words, is there any law that bars the killing of a foetus removed by a medical professional from the womb before the natural birth process kicks in and which would otherwise survive?

S.242 and 243 of the Criminal Code make it a crime to kill a baby and dispose of the body after natural birth. S.287 disallows abortions carried out specifically to terminate the development of a female foetus. What else is there?

[cybercoma]

I don't know about rates nor all the medical facts. But, in the absence of law, the decision on the part of the doctor is entirely a personal and moral one; if a doctor decides otherwise, is he held accountable in any way other than being scowled at by those who disagree with his choice? In other words, is there any law that bars the killing of a foetus removed by a medical professional from the womb before the natural birth process kicks in and which would otherwise survive?

S.242 and 243 of the Criminal Code make it a crime to kill a baby and dispose of the body after natural birth. S.287 disallows abortions carried out specifically to terminate the development of a female foetus. What else is there?

I'm not really sure. Of course, as extremely pro-choice as I am, I'm not at all opposed to having a debate and finally legislating abortion. The reason I want the debate is that I think we need to protect what women have now by encoding it.

In my opinion, at any point a woman does not want to be pregnant, she ought to be able to have an abortion. However, if that fetus would survive outside of the womb, I believe she should sign the child over to adoption services, but they should still remove the child immediately from her body. At no point must we allow the law to demand that people be medically tied to another individual against their will. This opens the door for things like requiring someone to donate a kidney against their will. If you would survive without a kidney, but refuse to give one to someone that would die. The pro-life argument holds that you're murdering the kidney recipient. I don't think this should ever be the case.

[g_bambino]

{I]f [a] fetus would survive outside of the womb, I believe [the mother] should sign the child over to adoption services, but they should still remove the child immediately from her body. At no point must we allow the law to demand that people be medically tied to another individual against their will.

I was thinking something along the same lines. However, it should only happen where a medical professional has determined that there's a good chance the foetus will survive and the medical equiment necessary is available. Plus, the process of giving over the child should be no easier than it is now for any mother who wants to do so after she's naturally given birth.

[ed.: +]

Edited May 1, 2012 by g_bambino