Tories to try a 2nd attempt to re-open abortion debate

[cybercoma]

I consider myself pro-abortion. I don't see the problem with the term, myself. The rationale is based in part on the choice argument, but I don't see being "pro-abortion" as being all the different from being "pro-condom" or "pro-diaphragm".

That said, Shady is an asshole. We know this to be so.

You may be pro-abortion, but I don't advocate for women to have abortions. I advocate for women to choose for themselves what they do with their bodies. This isn't about encouraging abortion (pro-abortion), it's about empowering women to have their own reproductive choices.

[cybercoma]

You can do tests to determine is your child has Downs Syndrome or spina bifida for example. Should we ban abortions in those cases too?

And those tests are often not conclusive until after 25 weeks. I would venture to guess that many of the late-term abortions are for this reason.

[Merlin]

Cybercoma there is a multi quote button, you don't need to make separate posts each time.

[cybercoma]

In India, where sex-selective abortion is a real issue, they simply ban doctors from testing for and informing the parents of the foetus's sex ... Is anyone willing to advocate this?

This is an approach that I would accept. People don't need to know their child's biological sex before it's born.

[Black Dog]

So you'd have to legislate that people must learn what the sex is.

Furthermore, knowing the sex and wanting an abortion doesn't denote "gender sex selection."

You're talking about Nanny State to the extreme here.

And yet it's ardent conservative pushing this issue. Funny, that.

[Wilber]

This is an approach that I would accept. People don't need to know their child's biological sex before it's born.

I agree but if someone really wants to know, they just have to go south of the border to find out.

[cybercoma]

Cybercoma there is a multi quote button, you don't need to make separate posts each time.

Thanks, Merlin.

[guyser]

. People don't need to know their child's biological sex before it's born.

Oh man, what paint colour will I go with? I'll have a mere day to paint it if I have to wait.

Why the hate! Come on....geez.

[Black Dog]

You may be pro-abortion, but I don't advocate for women to have abortions. I advocate for women to choose for themselves what they do with their bodies. This isn't about encouraging abortion (pro-abortion), it's about empowering women to have their own reproductive choices.

I think it's a distinction without a difference. One person's empowerment is another's encouragement.

[cybercoma]

I agree but if someone really wants to know, they just have to go south of the border to find out.

I just mean as a last resort. I don't actually think we should do it. I think people should be able to find the sex of their baby and I think women that don't want to be pregnant should be able to end that pregnancy.

[cybercoma]

I think it's a distinction without a difference. One person's empowerment is another's encouragement.

The difference is what's being empowered. I'm not empowering women to go have abortions. I'm advocating that women be able to decide for themselves.

Edited December 7, 2012 by cybercoma

[Wilber]

You may be pro-abortion, but I don't advocate for women to have abortions. I advocate for women to choose for themselves what they do with their bodies. This isn't about encouraging abortion (pro-abortion), it's about empowering women to have their own reproductive choices.

I believe they call that pro choice. I am pro choice but I am definitely not pro abortion.

[g_bambino]

The downside of putting up legislative barriers to abortion far outweigh the unfounded claim that these sex-selectcive abortions are happening. There is no reliable data to show that this is the case in Canada. Even if it were to happen and even if I find the reason repugnant, I don't believe we ought to force a woman at gunpoint to keep a baby inside her body that she doesn't want, regardless of her reasons for not wanting it.

You said whether a woman has an abortion or not is her choice since it's about her body, and we need not worry about the baby's body, since women "never" abort babies after a certain stage in the development of the foetus, it's "typically" too emotionally painful. I re-raised gender-based abortion - which we know does happen - merely as an example of a circumstance that may well prove your claims wrong; a woman who's six months pregnant may well either choose by her own beliefs or be forced by a male family member to undergo an abortion because the foetus is a female and, in such a scenario, the aboriton would be entirely legal, the baby's body be damned.

I understand this isn't a simple matter. But, that's what drives me to believe "oh, babies have no right to the protection of their person until they exit the womb and, really, there's no need to worry about it, women never have abortions after [X] weeks of pregnancy, anyway" is sufficient to close the debate.

[g_bambino]

This is an approach that I would accept. People don't need to know their child's biological sex before it's born.

Well, they may want to know what colour to paint the room.... But, yes, nobody knew the gender of their baby before it was born before ultrasounds came around.

I wonder, though, if such a ban would stand up to Charter challenge.

[Merlin]

The bill calls for official condemnation of sex selection abortions, that's it. Nothing else. Who could possibly be in favor of sex selection abortions?

This isn't a law, it doesn't put any limits on abortion, nothing like that just an official condemnation of the practice of sex selection abortions. Harmless.

[cybercoma]

You said whether a woman has an abortion or not is her choice since it's about her body, and we need not worry about the baby's body, since women "never" abort babies after a certain stage in the development of the foetus, it's "typically" too emotionally painful. I re-raised gender-based abortion - which we know does happen - merely as an example of a circumstance that may well prove your claims wrong; a woman who's six months pregnant may well either choose by her own beliefs or be forced by a male family member to undergo an abortion because the foetus is a female and, in such a scenario, the aboriton would be entirely legal, the baby's body be damned.

I understand this isn't a simple matter. But, that's what drives me to believe "oh, babies have no right to the protection of their person until they exit the womb and, really, there's no need to worry about it, women never have abortions after [X] weeks of pregnancy, anyway" is sufficient to close the debate.

Under no circumstances does anyone have the right to use a woman's body for their own purposes without her consent. Period.

[cybercoma]

Who could possibly be in favor of sex selection abortions?

Nobody is in favour of them. It's stupidity to suggest that they are, which is why the motion is ridiculous.

[Merlin]

Nobody is in favour of them. It's stupidity to suggest that they are, which is why the motion is ridiculous.

So then this motion should pass through the House easily with every party supporting it.

[g_bambino]

Under no circumstances does anyone have the right to use a woman's body for their own purposes without her consent. Period.

Well, then, perhaps there should be incubators at the ready to try and keep these aborted babies alive, since I assume you, as a compassionate person, also believe that, under no circumstances, does anyone have the right to kill a baby without its consent just because its mother wanted it out of her womb before contractions started.

[cybercoma]

Well, they may want to know what colour to paint the room.... But, yes, nobody knew the gender of their baby before it was born before ultrasounds came around.

I wonder, though, if such a ban would stand up to Charter challenge.

I'm just saying I would accept it. It's not an approach that I advocate. Regardless, as someone else mentioned, they'll just go south of the border or there will be hush-hush under the table sex disclosure at the clinics. I don't think there's anything that can practically (meaning, that will work in practice) be done by creating any of these bans and at the same time it will cause quite a bit of harm to people. At the end of the day, I stand behind the notion that women should be completely free to decide whether or not they want to be pregnant. It's not for me to decide for them. It's not for the state to decide for them. It's for them to decide for themselves for whatever reasons they personally have. Even when framed as rights for the fetus, no one has a right to use a woman's body against her will.

[cybercoma]

So then this motion should pass through the House easily with every party supporting it.

No it shouldn't because it gives future social conservatives the ability to point to this and say that abortion has been condemned in some circumstances; therefore, laws should be created to regulate it.

[g_bambino]

I don't think there's anything that can practically (meaning, that will work in practice) be done by creating any of these bans...

Very likely. But, then, we have laws that make it a crime to murder someone or steal, but murders and thefts continue to take place, nonetheless.

[bleeding heart]

Well, then, perhaps there should be incubators at the ready to try and keep these aborted babies alive, since I assume you, as a compassionate person, also believe that, under no circumstances, does anyone have the right to kill a baby without its consent just because its mother wanted it out of her womb before contractions started.

If you're going to raise the question of "a baby's consent"--and it's inherent extrapolation to all children of every age, on any number of subjects..then this is going to turn into quite the discussion.

But, then, we have laws that make it a crime to murder someone or steal, but murders and thefts continue to take place, nonetheless.

But when they are caught, they are punished.

How is this going to work in the other case? No one could ever possibly be caught or punished...so a total waste of time.

Edited December 7, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Black Dog]

The difference is what's being empowered. I'm not empowering women to go have abortions. I'm advocating that women be able to decide for themselves.

But in order for women to have a choice, the option must exist. I'm opposed to any measure that would restrict women's ability to make that choice: hence pro-abortion.

[Black Dog]

The bill calls for official condemnation of sex selection abortions, that's it. Nothing else. Who could possibly be in favor of sex selection abortions?

This isn't a law, it doesn't put any limits on abortion, nothing like that just an official condemnation of the practice of sex selection abortions. Harmless.

So why bother?