Motion 312 vote coming soon!

scribblet · September 27, 2012

Why, she has a democratic right to vote her conscience, how can people rant about a lack of democracy then complain when it is exercised.

Maybe those who are against examining the issue of when life begins (not abortion) are afraid of what a scientific study might tell them. Maybe life begins much earlier then they would like to admit.

Smallc · September 27, 2012

Why, she has a democratic right to vote her conscience, how can people rant about a lack of democracy then complain when it is exercised.

Well, it would seem to be in direct conflict with one of her portfolios.

Maybe those who are against examining the issue of when life begins (not abortion) are afraid of what a scientific study might tell them. Maybe life begins much earlier then they would like to admit.

When human life begins is not really a scientific question.

Black Dog · September 27, 2012

Why, she has a democratic right to vote her conscience, how can people rant about a lack of democracy then complain when it is exercised.

And I have a democratic right to complain about it.

Maybe those who are against examining the issue of when life begins (not abortion) are afraid of what a scientific study might tell them. Maybe life begins much earlier then they would like to admit.

What do you mean by life?

kraychik · September 27, 2012

The real debate about abortion has nothing to do with "when life begins". That part of the debate is a shell game for nincompoops to bicker over.

The question of when life begins is entirely central to this debate. You trying to write it off as something tangential is ridiculous.

The real debate is whether the state should have the power to dictate to an individual that they must provide the physical use of their body to support another's life. The state subjugating the physical freedom of one individual to the needs of another is what the "pro-life" side argues for.

That's also an important part of the debate, you're right. Although with the exception of non-consensual conceptions, the unborn is a product of a conscious choice between two persons. It's not a question I know the answer to. Bear in mind, that parents are "subjugated" (a ridiculous term you chose for shock value) until their children reach age of majority, until which they are obligated to provide and care for their children. So your argument of "subjugation", while important, isn't exclusive to the nine months of pregnancy.

kraychik · September 27, 2012

When human life begins is not really a scientific question.

It sort of is, if you include scientifically measurable criteria as part of your philosophical premise.

Smallc · September 27, 2012

It sort of is, if you include scientifically measurable criteria as part of your philosophical premise.

No, not really. If it was a scientifically determinable fact, it would have been determined a long time ago.

The_Squid · September 27, 2012

Although Prime Minister Stephen Harper had opposed the motion and voted against it, some members of his cabinet voted in favour. Those included Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, Public Works and Status of Women Minister Rona Ambrose, government House leader Peter Van Loan, International Co-operation Minister Julian Fantino, Trade Minister Ed Fast, Intergovernmental Affairs Peter Penashue, Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz, and National Revenue Minister Gail Shea.
Liberal MPs John McKay, Lawrence MacAulay, Kevin Lamoureux and Jim Karygiannis also supported the motion.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/09/26/pol-woodworth-motion-to-study-when-life-begins.html?cmp=rss

The Minister for the Status of Women votes in favour? Sickening...

g_bambino · September 27, 2012

Well, it would seem to be in direct conflict with one of her portfolios.

How so?

scribblet · September 27, 2012

Well, it would seem to be in direct conflict with one of her portfolios.

When human life begins is not really a scientific question.

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.

g_bambino · September 27, 2012

I differ in that IMO life begins when the baby is viable outside the mother's womb.

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.

Mr.Canada · September 27, 2012

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/09/26/pol-woodworth-motion-to-study-when-life-begins.html?cmp=rss

The Minister for the Status of Women votes in favour? Sickening...

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?

Moonbox · September 27, 2012

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?

Not when it involves taking away someone else's rights. As a minister she should be sacked. Harper doing so would send a strong message to the Bible-thumping morons in his party about how far this debate is going to go with him in charge.

Smallc · September 27, 2012

How so?

Because this motion was clearly designed as a way to reopen the abortion debate. Otherwise, it has no real purpose. Now, I don't disagree that a viable fetus (one that can survive as a separate individual) should be born, rather than aborted, but, the abortion issue is more about a woman's rights over her body. This motion would seem to be in conflict with that.

Smallc · September 27, 2012

Not when it involves taking away someone else's rights. As a minister she should be sacked.

I have no problem keeping her other portfolios, but, as the Minister of State for the Status of Women, she should be finished.

Mr.Canada · September 27, 2012

Not when it involves taking away someone else's rights. As a minister she should be sacked. Harper doing so would send a strong message to the Bible-thumping morons in his party about how far this debate is going to go with him in charge.

You're getting your facts from rabble again I think. Motion 312 is a motion to scientifically decide when human life begins. No ones rights are being taken away by answering that question.

Ministers are MP's and they have a commitment to their constituents in their riding. If she doesn't listen to her constituents she won't be re-elected.

It was a free vote so no one will be sacked.

Smallc · September 27, 2012

You're getting your facts from rabble again I think. Motion 312 is a motion to scientifically decide when human life begins.

And what is the purpose of that question, one that really have no scientific answer?

Ministers are MP's and they have a commitment to their constituents in their riding.

Ministers have commitments that go beyond that. When they become ministers, they accept those commitments. As the Minister of State for the Status of Women, Ambrose should really vote against a motion that is an underhanded way to undermine the status of women, no matter what she or her constituents may feel.

The_Squid · September 27, 2012

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

Sure... but if that runs counter to what your goals are supposed to be as the head of a particular ministry then the Minister should step down or the PM should remove them.

Moonbox · September 27, 2012

You're getting your facts from rabble again I think. Motion 312 is a motion to scientifically decide when human life begins. No ones rights are being taken away by answering that question.

Having a 'scientific' debate about this is ridiculous proposition. The debate would be idealogically driven and having it in the first place implies that the current rights of women are in question.

Ministers are MP's and they have a commitment to their constituents in their riding. If she doesn't listen to her constituents she won't be re-elected.

It was a free vote so no one will be sacked.

Ministers have a commitment to their constituents but that doesn't overshadow basic human rights. The masses can come up with all sorts of stupid ideas and a good minister will ignore most of them. As for sacking, she sets a pretty horrible standard as the Minister of the Status of Women or whatever it is. She's made the position farcical, and she should be shuffled out of cabinet at the earliest possible moment.

g_bambino · September 27, 2012

Because this motion was clearly designed as a way to reopen the abortion debate. Otherwise, it has no real purpose. Now, I don't disagree that a viable fetus (one that can survive as a separate individual) should be born, rather than aborted, but, the abortion issue is more about a woman's rights over her body. This motion would seem to be in conflict with that.

I still don't see where the conflict lies. Even it this motion was a way to open a debate on abortion, abortion isn't automatically sysnonymous with abuse of women. A civilized debate should be able to take place; many seem to agree the point where a child could survive outside its mother's womb is the point after which abortion shouldn't be allowed (and, as I understand it, doctors will refuse to do so). Yet, it is still legally okay to have it done. So... Even if the wording of the motion was stupid (politicians deciding a philosophical matter such as when life begins), wanting to discuss abortion is not, since it isn't necessarily a cover for advocating the harm of women.

------

I just caught myself (again, since, by just doing so, I recall having done the same during the last discussion I was engaged in on this subject): If a child is at a point where it can survive outside the womb, removing it wouldn't kill it. Since an abortion is specifically "the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability [emphasis mine]", the point of foetal viability is irrelevant to the abortion debate.

[ed.: +, corr.]

Edited September 27, 2012 by g_bambino

Smallc · September 27, 2012

I still don't see where the conflict lies. Even it this motion was a way to open a debate on abortion, abortion isn't automatically sysnonymous with abuse of women.

I disagree. An abortion is a medical issue to be decided between a woman and her doctor. Changing the law will infringe on that. It's that simple.

cybercoma · September 27, 2012

Why, she has a democratic right to vote her conscience, how can people rant about a lack of democracy then complain when it is exercised.

Maybe those who are against examining the issue of when life begins (not abortion) are afraid of what a scientific study might tell them. Maybe life begins much earlier then they would like to admit.

She can vote however she wants. I'm not saying she needs to resign as a sitting MP. I'm saying she needs to resign her position in the executive branch of government that has her overseeing women's rights issues. Clearly she's incapable of looking after women's rights, since she voted in support of a bill that was trying to bring anti-abortion legislation in through the back door.

The_Squid · September 27, 2012

I still don't see where the conflict lies. Even it this motion was a way to open a debate on abortion, abortion isn't automatically sysnonymous with abuse of women. A civilized debate should be able to take place; many seem to agree the point where a child could survive outside its mother's womb is the point after which abortion shouldn't be allowed (and, as I understand it, doctors will refuse to do so). Yet, it is still legally okay to have it done. So... Even if the wording of the motion was stupid (politicians deciding a philosophical matter such as when life begins), wanting to discuss abortion is not, since it isn't necessarily a cover for advocating the harm of women.

[ed.: +]

The issue is that this was never going to be a reasonable debate. 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. Also, how does one debate ethics with the religious-right that have to try and be sneaky about debating?

The motion asked whether a fetus is human.... Well what the hell is it? We need a committee to tell us that when humans breed that they produce humans? Grade 3 science class ended that "debate" for most people...

Mr.Canada · September 27, 2012

Moonbox. No one seems to know when human life actually begins. Motion 312 seeks to answer that question. Answering a question isn't ending anyones basic human rights.

This was a free vote not a whipped vote. You're suggesting that Mp's shouldn't be allowed to vote freely. What a shame. I thought you were in favor of democracy? Or is only democracy when you get what you want?