Motion 312 vote coming soon!

cybercoma · September 27, 2012

What does her portfolio say about when life begins or about championing the rights of say, female babies?

I'm being a devil's advocate here, I am pro-choice but believe there should be limits on late term abortions, even though they are rarely performed in Canada.

I can see the other side and their belief that the baby in the womb is a life, I differ in that IMO life begins when the baby is viable outside the mother's womb. In the U.S. it is defined at 23 weeks, which is good for me, the U.K. sets the limit at 24 weeks, at which point it is not an abortion, it is a live birth.

That's how I see it, too.

I seem to recall saying so in a discussion in these forums on this same matter (abortion, not Motion 312) not so long ago.

It is irrelevant when you begin personhood. You could begin it legally at conception. This puts two rights into competition with each other: right to life for the fetus vs right to security of the person for the mother. The state cannot require the mother to use her body in a way that she does not want to nor can the state pass laws that interfere with a person's right to life (the fetus in this case). However, when those two rights compete in the case of abortion, the mother's right to security of the body wins out. The fetus is not being put to death. This is very important distinction. A mother that has an abortion simply refuses to use her body as the means to keep another human being alive. Right to life does not mean that you have the right to be kept alive, even when it interferes with security of the body of another person. If that were the case, it would be a dying person's right to demand that the state harvest organs from people even if it's against their will.

So at the end of the day, it's completely irrelevant if personhood or life begins at conception or not. It's completely unethical for the government to pass any law that requires a human being to have the security of their body violated by another person.

The Minister still has to represent the constituents in her riding. She is still an MP. Perhaps the people in her riding supported this motion and contacted her and told her to support it.

Do you think that MP's shouldn't do what the voters in their respective ridings want?

No one's saying she shouldn't continue to be an MP. She shouldn't, however, have a portfolio that is meant to protect the rights of women in government if she refuses to do so when it comes to legislative votes. It should go to someone that actually has women's interests in mind. She needs to step down immediately.

Smallc · September 27, 2012

At any rate the motion has been defeated which means that conservatives voted against it including PM Harper. So you should be happy.

I am.

The_Squid · September 27, 2012

At any rate the motion has been defeated which means that conservatives voted against it including PM Harper. So you should be happy.

I'm not actually... I was really hoping that the Conservatives would pass this motion.... It would have been the end of them in the next election for certain.

At any rate, people have the right to be unhappy and criticize their MPs when they do vote in favour of such idiotic motions as M312.

g_bambino · September 27, 2012

If they want to debate abortion, then come out and say it. Using a backdoor plan to sneak in a debate about abortion that isn't really about abortion is not going to end up with an honest debate.

Oh, absolutely. The motion itself was stupid. I was merely commenting on people's apparent assumptions that because Ambrose voted in favour of the motion she somehow favours the abuse of women and should therefore resign her post as Minister for the Status of Women.

Moonbox · September 27, 2012

At any rate the motion has been defeated which means that conservatives voted against it including PM Harper. So you should be happy.

I am satisfied, but fairly annoyed that they would have such a tool as the Minister for the Status of Women. The Conservative Party's track record is pretty sketchy in that regard, and you start to wonder why the number of ministers was expanded so much when you're just bringing idiots like Maxime Bernier, Bev Oda and this tool to fill the positions.

Smallc · September 27, 2012

I'm not actually... I was really hoping that the Conservatives would pass this motion.... It would have been the end of them in the next election for certain.

Well, for me, it just proved they're a big tent party, and one near the Canadian centre. I don't have a problem with them generally...although I think they're currently short on ideas.

Smallc · September 27, 2012

and this tool to fill the positions.

But she isn't just some tool:

She serves as the Minister of Public Works and Government Services for Canada, Vice-Chair of the Treasury Board Cabinet committee, Minister of State for Status of Women Canada and Minister of Western Economic Diversification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rona_Ambrose

She holds 4, yes - 4 - portfolios!

Never mind the number of ministers....you should see the number of ministries.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Smallc

The_Squid · September 27, 2012

Oh, absolutely. The motion itself was stupid. I was merely commenting on people's apparent assumptions that because Ambrose voted in favour of the motion she somehow favours the abuse of women and should therefore resign her post as Minister for the Status of Women.

I believe that she should. It seems to me that voting in favour of this motion (the religious right's backdoor method of ending abortion) runs counter to the mandate of her ministry.

Status of Women Canada works to advance equality for women by focusing its efforts in three priority areas:
increasing women's economic security and prosperity;

encouraging women's leadership and democratic participation; and

ending violence against women.

---------------------------------------

As Minister for Status of Women, the Honourable Rona Ambrose is a champion of women’s rights.

http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/abu-ans/index-eng.html#mandate

http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/abu-ans/min/index-eng.html

cybercoma · September 27, 2012

Oh, absolutely. The motion itself was stupid. I was merely commenting on people's apparent assumptions that because Ambrose voted in favour of the motion she somehow favours the abuse of women and should therefore resign her post as Minister for the Status of Women.

I don't think it's being implied that she "favours the abuse of women." The problem is that she's either unable to or unwilling to defend women by standing up against M-312.

The_Squid · September 27, 2012

Well, for me, it just proved they're a big tent party, and one near the Canadian centre. I don't have a problem with them generally...although I think they're currently short on ideas.

Hardly a centrist government when 87 out of 163 members voted for this bill. That is a majority of Conservative Party members! Not centrist whatsoever... actually, very religious-right, socially conservative! (it received 91 votes, 4 of which came from Liberals)

The only reason it did not pass was due to the opposition members voting against it.

Although only 294 votes were cast out of 308 seats. It would be interesting to know who was absent or abstained from voting...

I reiterate.... a majority of the Conservative Party MPs are social conservatives.

Edited September 27, 2012 by The_Squid

Moonbox · September 27, 2012

She holds 4, yes - 4 - portfolios!

Never mind the number of ministers....you should see the number of ministries.

It's sad, comical and infuriating all at the same time. It's starting to sould like Chinese or Soviet-style bureaucracy.

The Minister for the Regulation of Safety Standards for Toilet Seats...I await the day.

Smallc · September 27, 2012

I reiterate.... a majority of the Conservative Party MPs are social conservatives.

About half of them, actually....very down the middle. They represent rural ridings for the most part. What do you expect (although my MP, in a very rural area, voted against the motion)?

This government has not at all been socially conservative outside of crime issues.

g_bambino · September 27, 2012

It is irrelevant when you begin personhood. You could begin it legally at conception. This puts two rights into competition with each other: right to life for the fetus vs right to security of the person for the mother. The state cannot require the mother to use her body in a way that she does not want to nor can the state pass laws that interfere with a person's right to life (the fetus in this case). However, when those two rights compete in the case of abortion, the mother's right to security of the body wins out. The fetus is not being put to death. This is very important distinction. A mother that has an abortion simply refuses to use her body as the means to keep another human being alive. Right to life does not mean that you have the right to be kept alive, even when it interferes with security of the body of another person.

I understand the argument, except for the claim that a foetus (assuming, as we are in this, that it is technically a person) being removed before viability isn't being put to death.

Conversely, I wonder if the father has the right to not be used as the means to keep another human being alive; ie. to have a choice in paying to support the child the mother decided to carry to term (when the child certainly has become a person).

[ed.: +]

Edited September 27, 2012 by g_bambino

Smallc · September 27, 2012

Conversely, I wonder if the father has the right to not be used as the means to keep another human being alive; ie. to have a choice in paying to support the child the mother decided to carry to term.

Now see that is an interesting question.

scribblet · September 27, 2012

Oh, absolutely. The motion itself was stupid. I was merely commenting on people's apparent assumptions that because Ambrose voted in favour of the motion she somehow favours the abuse of women and should therefore resign her post as Minister for the Status of Women.

Exactly - she has a right to choose how to vote, and to vote in favour of protecting the unborn female. In fact, I give her an A for having the guts to do so.

Maybe we should have a Minister of Abortions.

You know, there are many people who do not believe it's a woman's 'right' to kill an unborn baby, I doubt the issue will ever be settled, there will always be different opinions.

The_Squid · September 27, 2012

About half of them, actually....very down the middle. They represent rural ridings for the most part. What do you expect (although my MP, in a very rural area, voted against the motion)?

This government has not at all been socially conservative outside of crime issues.

More than half... and this is exactly what I expected... the majority of the Conservative Mps being held in check by the more pragmatic minority of Conservative MPs (led by Harper) that are trying hard to hold on to the reigns of power... they govern like social conservatives when they can get away with it (crime) and are more pragmatic for the time being on other socially conservative issues. I am not in favour of social conservatives being in government. They are also held in check by the opposition, as we saw on this vote.

Your contention was that they are "centrist"... it is a huge stretch to try and make that case.

The_Squid · September 27, 2012

... I doubt the issue will ever be settled, there will always be different opinions.

It's been settled in Canada since the 70's....

The different opinions are from a vocal religious-right minority that want to remove women's rights and they should be ignored.

scribblet · September 27, 2012

About half of them, actually....very down the middle. They represent rural ridings for the most part. What do you expect (although my MP, in a very rural area, voted against the motion)?

This government has not at all been socially conservative outside of crime issues.

True, they just haven't been following that 'hidden agenda' at all... gotta look for another one.

Actually I thought less than half were social conservatives, I'd say maybe 35 - 40%, if that. At least there maybe 50% but most of them know enough to be pragmatic about it, there are just some issues that will never fly in Canada.

Just read this, maybe it needs another thread ?

Considering the views about Ambrose and her vote and position, how should she vote on this one :lol:

http://www.markwarawa.com/media_/mark_in_the_news/mp-mark-warawa-introduces-motion-to-condemn-discrimination-against-females-via-sex-selective-pregnancy-termination

scribblet · September 27, 2012

It's been settled in Canada since the 70's....

The different opinions are from a vocal religious-right minority that want to remove women's rights and they should be ignored.

No it has not been settled, and the majority of Canadians actually do believe there should be a limit to late term abortions.

g_bambino · September 27, 2012

No it has not been settled, and the majority of Canadians actually do believe there should be a limit to late term abortions.

There's no such thing as a "late term abortion". As soon as the foetus is viable, its removal from the womb ceases to be an abortion.

scribblet · September 27, 2012

There's no such thing as a "late term abortion". As soon as the foetus is viable, its removal from the womb ceases to be an abortion.

I said that allready, but when is it 'viable' at what point do we say it's a live birth.

cybercoma · September 27, 2012

Conversely, I wonder if the father has the right to not be used as the means to keep another human being alive; ie. to have a choice in paying to support the child the mother decided to carry to term (when the child certainly has become a person).
[ed.: +]

It's not that women have the right not to be used as a means to keep another human being alive. It's that the government cannot pass legislation violating the security of their bodies. In other words, the government can't decree that they must have something growing inside of them against their will. You're comparing a financial obligation and laws about a person's property to security of the person. They're not even in the same ballpark.

Black Dog · September 27, 2012

No it has not been settled, and the majority of Canadians actually do believe there should be a limit to late term abortions.

Accepting for a moment your terminology, I wonder how many people who believe such things are aware of the extent to which these things occur.

scribblet · September 27, 2012

IMO most people who express an opinion know that late term abortions are quite rare in Canada, maybe 1%.

The Canadian Medical Association defines abortion as “the active termination of a pregnancy before fetal viability”. They do recognize that late term abortions may be performed “under exceptional circumstances.”

Unless you’ve been living in some nether world for the past 20 years, you’ll know that Canada is the only country in the Western world to offer no legal regulation on abortive practices whatsoever. Canada is the only country in the Western world to offer no legal regulation on abortion, including Scandinavian countries which the Canadian left appear to greatly admire.

Edited September 27, 2012 by scribblet

g_bambino · September 27, 2012

It's not that women have the right not to be used as a means to keep another human being alive.

A mother that has an abortion simply refuses to use her body as the means to keep another human being alive.

You're comparing a financial obligation and laws about a person's property to security of the person. They're not even in the same ballpark.

We are both talking about the state forcing someone to keep another human being alive. A woman can't be forced by the state to keep a child alive inside her. A woman can't be forced by the state to care for her child after its born. But a man can be forced by the state, regardless of the security of his person, to pay for the keeping alive of the child the mother decided would be born and would be cared for by her?