Anti Abortion Not Dead in Canada

[Keepitsimple]

Exactly - no matter the reason they have the right to end the pregnancy.

I respect your opinion - and many others hold the same view. I too thought that we might be able to get away with no restrictions at all and leave it it the hands of medical professionals to use good judgement.....but as time goes on, I can see cultural issues encroaching on Canada where some patriarchal cultures will indeed abort female fetuses - just because they are female - and the "decision" is often forced upon the woman. A second thread is that the ease and actual teaching of abortion as being as common and aceptable as removing a mole.......well, its just not a good thing. That's why in my opinion, I think we should bring the issue to the table and consider joining every other Western country in putting minimal legislation in place that to some degree, confirms society's position that having children is a serious and important proposition that brings with it a set of responsibilities.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Keepitsimple

[guyser]

Okay I buy that but if she chooses to keep the child why does the male suddenly have responsibility? After all it is her body and her right then so should the child she brings into this world. If the male is not considered when it comes to abortion as it is her right & right alone .. then same should apply when she alone decides to keep the baby. Is this not a double standard?

His sperm, he needs to step up.

Make things your way and all of a sudden the country will be filled with men who say they didnt want it.

[guyser]

Your arguments will always be fail for at least two undeniable reasons:

1) Abortion is the termination of a human life.

2) A woman's pregnancy (and "choice" to abort it in some cases) is not a private matter - it has wider implications for society.

Pretty good , telling someone their argument fails......and then post two absolute untruths (colossal fails as it were)....how is that fail coming along?

1) No it isnt, nice try though. If what you say is true why are they not charged with murder?

2)it is a womans private body , no amount of religious sanctimony can change that.

[guyser]

Peter F, if you want to argue in favour of abortion, you should find another argument than: "Women should be free to choose".

Yes Peter F you should find another angle, i dunno....like 'others can decide on what a woman's private body can or cant hold" or "woman are too dumb to decide for themselves what they want to do"

[guyser]

"End the pregnancy" means terminating a human life.

Thankfully it doesnt.

But you can repeat it again and again, ad naseum should you wish.

And you"ll still be wrong.

[guyser]

I respect your opinion - and many others hold the same view. I too thought that we might be able to get away with no restrictions at all and leave it it the hands of medical professionals to use good judgement.....but as time goes on, I can see cultural issues encroaching on Canada where some patriarchal cultures will indeed abort female fetuses - just because they are female - and the "decision" is often forced upon the woman. A second thread is that the ease and actual teaching of abortion as being as common and aceptable as removing a mole.......well, its just not a good thing. That's why in my opinion, I think we should bring the issue to the table and consider joining every other Western country in putting minimal legislation in place that to some degree, confirms society's position that having children is a serious and important proposition that brings with it a set of responsibilities.

The issue then is a cultural issue and should be addressed as such.

[Keepitsimple]

The issue then is a cultural issue and should be addressed as such.

Would be nice if it could - but there is nothing illegal about gender selection through abortion - quite the opposite from the pro-choice crowd. If you don't want a girl - abort. If you don't want a boy - abort. They're left-handed - abort. It's entirely the choice of the woman (or the husband who's "guiding" her decision) - at any stage of the pregnancy.

[scribblet]

As an aside but not really off topic, I just saw the verdict in the Philadelphia abortion case. It's a tragic isolated case (I hope) but no doubt will be used by the anti abortionists on both sides of the border in attempts to restrict women's choices.

[The_Squid]

Would be nice if it could - but there is nothing illegal about gender selection through abortion - quite the opposite from the pro-choice crowd. If you don't want a girl - abort. If you don't want a boy - abort. They're left-handed - abort. It's entirely the choice of the woman (or the husband who's "guiding" her decision) - at any stage of the pregnancy.

Why would they have to have a reason? And who verifies the reason is a valid one? The Dr.? A bureaucrat? The RCMP?

It is simply not a workable solution.

[Guest]

As an aside but not really off topic, I just saw the verdict in the Philadelphia abortion case. It's a tragic isolated case (I hope) but no doubt will be used by the anti abortionists on both sides of the border in attempts to restrict women's choices.

Actually, it's a better argument for the pro choice lobby. More restrictive laws on abortion would only result in more Kermit Gosnells.

[Guest Kenneth]

Not sure how you figure that. It would save the lives of millions of children and ensure that those who still insist on engaging in the practice of murdering unborn children are held criminally responsible.

[Guest]

No, it wouldn't. It would force women who don't want their bodies used as incubators at someone else's insistence to find a hole such as his to have an abortion. Foetus still dies, but now maybe the woman does too.

[August1991]

Yes Peter F you should find another angle, i dunno....like 'others can decide on what a woman's private body can or cant hold" or "woman are too dumb to decide for themselves what they want to do"

But in a civilized society, I am not free to do with my private body as I wish.

For example, the State has the right to force me (my private body) to work for the collective for almost half the year.

----

To me, the pro-choice lobby is wrong to argue on the grounds that a woman should be "free to choose" what she does with her body. The argument is weak because as a taxpayer, I am not free to do what I want with my body.

OTOH, the pro-life lobby is wrong to argue on the grounds that "killing is wrong". The argument is weak because a civilized State condones killing in many ways. For example, we have armies, and we tolerate (?) badly maintained roads where lethal accidents occur.

=====

When it comes to the question of abortion, I generally ignore people who argue that a woman "has a right to her body" and people who argue that "murder is a sin".

The abortion debate deserves better.

Edited May 14, 2013 by August1991

[guyser]

Not sure how you figure that.

Easy, back alley abortion houses would prop up , much like this one that serves the very poor. It exxisted in abundance before and would rise again.

It would save the lives of millions of children and ensure that those who still insist on engaging in the practice of murdering unborn children are held criminally responsible.

Well ...well...still stuck on the emotional angle are we. So very christian of you.

If they are murdering children (and they are not) then they should be charged with murder (and they are not).

Hmm wonder why? Perhaps....no make that because they are not recognized as children.

Just a zygote or a fetus that needs to be rid of.

Oh and by the way, none of a mans business , noe of a womans either except for the one carrying.

Why dont you support privacy rights? What other rights do you want to dictate about?

[guyser]

But in a civilized society, I am not free to do with my private body as I wish.

Yes you are.

You can do with your body what you want.

For example, the State has the right to force me (my private body) to work for the collective for almost half the year.

No it doesnt but you can think that.

Ever heard the word no? Try it sometime

----

To me, the pro-choice lobby is wrong to argue on the grounds that a woman should be "free to choose" what she does with her body. The argument is weak because as a taxpayer, I am not free to do what I want with my body.

You may think its wrong, but you are in fact dead wrong.

The state has no business telling a woman what to do with her body. Go ask the Supreme Court if you like.

Her body her decision.

[Peter F]

But in a civilized society, I am not free to do with my private body as I wish.

For example, the State has the right to force me (my private body) to work for the collective for almost half the year.

----

To me, the pro-choice lobby is wrong to argue on the grounds that a woman should be "free to choose" what she does with her body. The argument is weak because as a taxpayer, I am not free to do what I want with my body.

OTOH, the pro-life lobby is wrong to argue on the grounds that "killing is wrong". The argument is weak because a civilized State condones killing in many ways. For example, we have armies, and we tolerate (?) badly maintained roads where lethal accidents occur.

=====

When it comes to the question of abortion, I generally ignore people who argue that a woman "has a right to her body" and people who argue that "murder is a sin".

The abortion debate deserves better.

Well, it certainly deserves better than what you are providing.

Since, by your logic, the state has usurped a certain part of your labour through taxes, the state can therefore demand a tax-paying woman to become pregnant. In fact they could order you, as a male employee of the governent, to inseminate thier femaile employees.

You clearly do not understand the relationship between the employer and the employee - which is not Master/Slave - never mind that you are unable

to see the difference between taxation and employment.

[Guest Kenneth]

Her body her decision.

Wrong. The fetus/infant has only 50% of her genetics and is another living being.

Frankly it doesnt matter what the Supreme Court says on this matter - the ideological beliefs of its members makes it a sham court with no real legitimacy to me. None of these people were elected, most Canadians don't even know who they are or anything about their educational background. In terms of ethnicity, it is nowhere near representative of the Canadian people, and my guess is thorough research of their education and political/social affiliations would uncover at least two or three Communists.

[guyser]

Wrong. The fetus/infant has only 50% of her genetics and is another living being.

No it isnt, If it were a living being one could get charged with harming it.

But we both know that cant happen. And thankfully, wiser heads prevail.

It is her body, the right to privacy is the reason she can do it. Dont like it ? Fine. Lost not to like. but the anti-dote is worse than the sickness.

Frankly it doesnt matter what the Supreme Court says on this matter - the ideological beliefs of its members makes it a sham court with no real legitimacy to me.

Oh lordy , here s the "they dont rep me " BS.

It may not matter to you, but, it is the supreme court and they hold power.

None of these people were elected, most Canadians don't even know who they are or anything about their educational background. In terms of ethnicity, it is nowhere near representative of the Canadian people, and my guess is thorough research of their education and political/social affiliations would uncover at least two or three Communists.

Uh oh....

Methinks we just jumped the shark.

Communism?

Education affiliations?

Political affiliations?

Ok...bye bye, have fun in loopy land.

[waldo]

I don't see a need to bring in the RCMP as no law has been broken. However, this confirms my previous post that late term abortions are being performed, more than what I actually had thought.

http://www.albertaprimetime.com/Stories.aspx?pd=4780

Tory backbenchers are asking the RCMP to investigate later-term abortions. They say almost 500 abortions performed in Canada between 2000 and 2009 should be investigated as homicides because they took place after the 20 weeks gestation and resulted in live births.

The 500 'live births' are part of the 400 per year between 2000-2009. The usual reason for this type of thing is when the baby has a major abnormal defect such as fetal encephalopathy. The fetus would not have lived anyway, but I don't think bothers the radicals.

Although there are professional guidelines and supposedly no physician in Canada can or will terminate a pregnancy over 24 weeks without serious indications that the life of the mother is at risk or that the fetus has very serious malformations, it is happening.

There is enough evidence out there for me support actual legislation banning abortions after 20-24 weeks because it's evident that the guidelines are not always adhered to.

enough evidence? You've certainly not provided any evidence... your linked reference doesn't corroborate your implication that the medical establishment is not properly managing itself. More pointedly, your linked reference to the 500 491 abortions fails to note the numbers also includes stillbirths:

Statistics Canada said the 491 cases that it counted during the 10-year period referred to matters where “the cause of death or stillbirth is an abortion.”

Statistics Canada added it also included stillbirths when “the aborted fetus is born dead but meets the provincial requirements [birth weight and/or gestational age].”

[HurtinOntario]

Who gives a flying fig about what christianity thinks?

Every citizen is entitled to their own opinion and free expression of as long as it doesn't involve anything hateful.

[-TSS-]

What a dejavu-feeling these abortion-debates always are. No-one has said anything for ages that wouldn't have been said countless times before. But let me add another comment to those comments which have been mentioned many times before: Why is it always old men who are most vehemently against abortion? Why do they consider the whole issue their business in the first place?

[On Guard for Thee]

Firstly, if I had a magic wand I would immediately wave it and no woman would ever have to face what must be a very difficult decision: whether or not to have an abortion. I reckon our best hope of achieving that will be with social work, We have already tried legislation and we all know how miserably that failed.. I agree with the wisdom the SCC handed down 25 years ago, that abortion should be a decision made between a woman and her doctor. We may see another wave of the religious right wing of the conservatives trying to table anti abortion bills now that Harper has fallen from grace and those backbenchers aren't so far in the back anymore.

[Traveller]

I agree with the wisdom the SCC handed down 25 years ago, that abortion should be a decision made between a woman and her doctor. We may see another wave of the religious right wing of the conservatives trying to table anti abortion bills now that Harper has fallen from grace and those backbenchers aren't so far in the back anymore.

His own beliefs aside, Harper has been astute enough to ensure the issue never came up as part of his agenda (though he has erred in letting his backbenchers raise it - of all the things he DID NOT clamp down on, THIS he let thorugh...sigh).

The religious right wing is a paper tiger - They can scream and bleat all they want but this is not the United States. They don't control the reins of power in the CPC and since their only other political option is the Christian Heritage Party (who only ran 46 candidates, got less than 20,000 votes, and less than 1% of the total vote) they have NO OPTION but to support the CPC, if they want any voice whatsoever. They are a group that can (and should) be ignored by the powers in charge.

[Peter F]

Hypothetical questions?

* Woman wants to abort the child but the male doesn't & would like to keep the child and raise it. Does she still have that right to abort because in essence in order to become pregnant it takes two to tango so she should no longer be a sole decision as another person is now involved.

Case name Tremblay v. Daigle

Collection Supreme Court Judgments

Date 1989-08-08

Report citation [1989] 2 S.C.R. 530

Case number 21553

Judges Dickson, Robert George Brian; Lamer, Antonio; Wilson, Bertha; La Forest, Gérard V.; L'Heureux-Dubé, Claire; Sopinka, John; Gonthier, Charles Doherty; Cory, Peter deCarteret; McLachlin, Beverley

On appeal from Quebec

Subjects Civil law

Civil procedure

Constitutional law

http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/515/index.do

(Wherein the Father - (Tremblay) saught an injunction to stop the mother (Daigle) from procuring an abortion)

The injunction must be set aside because the substantive rights which are alleged to support it -- the rights accorded to a foetus or a potential father -- do not exist.

(3) "Father's" Rights

The argument based upon "father's rights" (more accurately referred to as "potential father's rights") is the third and final basis on which the substantive rights necessary to support the impugned injunction might be founded. This argument would appear to be based on the proposition that the potential father's contribution to the act of conception gives him an equal say in what happens to the foetus. Little emphasis was put on this argument in the appeal. It was alluded to by several of the parties in an indirect fashion, although it does appear to have been accepted by both Viens J. in the Superior Court and LeBel J.A. in the Court of Appeal.

There does not appear to be any jurisprudential basis for this argument. No court in Quebec or elsewhere has ever accepted the argument that a father's interest in a foetus which he helped create could support a right to veto a woman's decisions in respect of the foetus she is carrying. A number of cases in various jurisdictions outside of Quebec have considered this argument and explicitly rejected it: Paton v. British Pregnancy Advisory Service Trustees, supra; Medhurst v. Medhurst, supra; Whalley v. Whalley (1981), 122 D.L.R. (3d) 717 (B.C.S.C.); Mock v. Brandanburg (1988), 61 Alta. L.R. (2d) 235 (Q.B.); Doe v. Doe, 314 N.E.2d 128 (Mass. 1974); Jones v. Smith, 278 So.2d 339 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973). We have been unable to find a single decision in Quebec or elsewhere which would support the allegation of "father's rights" necessary to support this injunction. There is nothing in the Civil Code or any legislation in Quebec which could be used to support the argument. This lack of a legal basis is fatal to the argument about "father's rights".

[Sandy MacNab]

I don't listen to or respect the religious and legal mumbo-jumbo. No matter how vigorously some may try to rationalize otherwise, the fact is, at the moment of conception there is human life , a living human life. And, like other human life, no matter what its age, he/she is worthy of protection and respect.

Furthermore, at no time should he/she be considered disposable.

Or do some disagree? If so, I ask you, at what age is a human no longer disposable?

Pick an age, starting with conception - 2 months, 6 months, 3 years, 4 years? How about 6 years? How about making any kid under six years old completely disposable? Or, how about any age when they're still needing food, clothing and shelter from mom and dad: AND worse, are in the way and a burden in every sense of the word? What about Grandma and Grandpa, they too can be a pain in the ass. How do we abort them?