Anti Abortion Not Dead in Canada

[Peter F]

So what is your point? The "progressives" aren't expressing outrage therefore the progressives are ...?

In regards to meaningful debate, Canada too had meaningfull debate - all throughout the sixties and seventies and into the eighties. That meaningfull debate resulted in the same laws that you referenced that most other civilized countries have.

Then Morgantaler came along and some juries decided the law was an ass, followed by the Supreme court striking down those laws because they weren't applied equally across the land.

You see? Canada has a very different history regarding abortion law. And thats why your civilized nations are the way they are and we are not.

And that, I don't mind saying, is a good thing.

[Keepitsimple]

So what is your point? The "progressives" aren't expressing outrage therefore the progressives are ...?

Hypocrits.

Your history is right - but we never went back to FIX the legislation.....and now we are stuck with a situation that our lawmakers never thought would happen - a cultural bias against female births resulting in thousands of needless abortions.....and I'll bet that the patriarchal nature of these cultures mean that the bozo MEN actually make the decisions. So much for womens' rights. In general, that type of outcome cannot legally occur in every other Western country because they FINISHED their debate and came to reasonable, balanced conclusions. Are you really content to let that kind of selective abortion carry on indefinitely - and what other types of selective abortions will raise their head - red hair, cleft lip, left-handed?

Edited May 11, 2013 by Keepitsimple

[Peter F]

There is only one response: you have no idea why any woman gets an abortion; Not a shred of a clue.

Niether do I. And her reasons are entirely irrelevant.

She wants to end her pregnancy. She gets to end her pregnancy in a medically safe manner.

Edited May 11, 2013 by Peter F

[scribblet]

There is only one response: you have no idea why any woman gets an abortion; Not a shred of a clue.

Niether do I. And her reasons are entirely irrelevant.

She wants to end her pregnancy. She gets to end her pregnancy in a medically safe manner.

That's about it in a nutshell.

However, there are about 0.4% late term abortions performed in Canada which corresponds to an annual number of at least 400 terminated late term fetuses in Canada. That's high IMO. We don’t know why they were terminated but that many per year can't all be for the health of the mother. This has to be old data as the numbers are censored, particularly in Ontario.

See about Bill 122 and FIPPA in: http://www.barbarakay.ca/articles/view/613

Also note that the Supreme Court made clear when it struck down the last law regulating abortion, there is no "right" to abortion, simply an absence of regulation at that time. The Court stated that protection was entirely appropriate to the maturing fetus and invited Parliament to develop suitable legislation that was Charter proof. The PC's under Mulroney tried to comply with this request, but the Bill was killed in the Senate.

Maybe it is time to have that discussion and at legislate against late term abortions (except under extreme circumstances)

Edited May 11, 2013 by scribblet

[bush_cheney2004]

....She wants to end her pregnancy. She gets to end her pregnancy in a medically safe manner.

That's great..."she" can knock herself out trying to end her pregnancy in a "safe manner" if a doctor will not perform the procedure and/or the state refuses to pay for it. Her "abortion rights" do not trump the rights of others.

[scribblet]

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_Squid]

In a 10 year time-span less than 500 late term abortions.... most likely for the health of the mother, since that is generally why they are performed at all... and the nutbar religious types in the Conservative Party would like these women to be harassed by the RCMP and further reminded of traumatic events that were in most cases, if not in all cases, because of health reasons beyond the pregnant person's control.

What a bunch of assholes.

[Keepitsimple]

There is only one response: you have no idea why any woman gets an abortion; Not a shred of a clue.

Niether do I. And her reasons are entirely irrelevant.

She wants to end her pregnancy. She gets to end her pregnancy in a medically safe manner.

Just to be clear....so you think all the other Western countries have it wrong and we have it right? No restrictions - period.

[Peter F]

To be clear...Yes - no restrictions whatsoever.

[scribblet]

In a 10 year time-span less than 500 late term abortions.... most likely for the health of the mother, since that is generally why they are performed at all... and the nutbar religious types in the Conservative Party would like these women to be harassed by the RCMP and further reminded of traumatic events that were in most cases, if not in all cases, because of health reasons beyond the pregnant person's control.

What a bunch of assholes.

Not quite. 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. Again, the problem with this is it opens the door for the radicals to push for lowering the no. of weeks until it becomes 0.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/06/incompatible-with-life-one-mothers-account-of-her-difficult-decision-to-request-a-rare-late-term-abortion/

[The_Squid]

because it's evident that the guidelines are not always adhered to

What evidence do you have to support that?

[scribblet]

What evidence do you have to support that?

From the link in my previous post.

[Guest Kenneth]

There is only one response: you have no idea why any woman gets an abortion; Not a shred of a clue.

Niether do I. And her reasons are entirely irrelevant.

She wants to end her pregnancy. She gets to end her pregnancy in a medically safe manner.

The reason is entirely relevant. Youre arguing that someone who more likely than not really was making poor choices in her life to get to this point should suddenly have the unequivocal right to terminate a human life. Often these people are not even old enough to drive, vote, etc. yet they have the right to terminate a human life.

[Peter F]

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

[The_Squid]

From the link in my previous post.

That was for medical reasons....

So where are the guidelines not being adhered to when it isn't for medical reasons?

[scribblet]

I think I posted the wrong link

IMO the issue is heating up and is not going away, I think we will see more and more attempts to open up the debate.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/05/02/schouten/

"Last month, for instance, pro-life blogger Suzanne Fortin wrote about an interview conducted by Montreal talk show host Isabelle Maréchal of 98.5FM, with a caller identified as Karel. It came during a segment entitled “Is abortion too trivialized?”

Karel indicated that she is 33 years old and has had five abortions. That alone is disturbing. But even more disturbing is what Karel said about her fifth one, which she says took place at the CLSC de Faubourgs on Rue Sanguinet in Montreal when she was 26 weeks pregnant.

When Ms. Maréchal asked Karel if this abortion was a result of a high risk pregnancy or if her life had been in danger, Karel replied, “No, I had no problems.”

Edited May 13, 2013 by scribblet

[The_Squid]

That's not data... A pro-lifer says she heard on the radio that some anonymous person said so? I'm convinced! Get your dead fetus signs.... We're going to protest!!

[August1991]

There is only one response: you have no idea why any woman gets an abortion; Not a shred of a clue.

Niether do I. And her reasons are entirely irrelevant.

She wants to end her pregnancy. She gets to end her pregnancy in a medically safe manner.

And by a similar argument, other people want to end their taxation.

If the State has the power to tax - take my body's efforts, then why does its power not extend to a woman's pregnancy?

----

Peter F, if you want to argue in favour of abortion, you should find another argument than: "Women should be free to choose". I think Milton Friedman argued that taxpayers should also be: "Free to Choose"

Edited May 13, 2013 by August1991

[Guest]

I don't know anyone who argues in favour of abortion. They argue in favour of a woman's right to have one if she wants one.

And to argue that this is comparable to taxation is, as I stated earlier, nonsense.

You seem to be arguing that if there is one thing we have no choice over, the right to kill those we don't like, for instance, then that limitation should be expanded to encompass all things we have choice over. One lump or two in one's tea, say.

Nobody told you what to wear today, but you still had to pay taxes.

[Guest Kenneth]

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

"End the pregnancy" means terminating a human life.

[August1991]

And to argue that this is comparable to taxation is, as I stated earlier, nonsense.

I merely meant to note that if someone argues that a woman should have the right to abortion on the grounds that a woman owns her body, then I wonder about taxation: the State takes about 50% of my efforts, my body.

bcsapper, in a civilized State, it is wrong to believe that individuals are all free to do as we each want.

A woman's right to an abortion is no more obvious than a rich man's right to 60% of his efforts.

[August1991]

You seem to be arguing that if there is one thing we have no choice over, the right to kill those we don't like, for instance, then that limitation should be expanded to encompass all things we have choice over.

Let me consider that idea too.

Our governments authorize soldiers and police to kill people. I don't know how many Canadian soldiers killed people, possibly innocent, in Afghanistan, but I know that many Canadians killed Koreans and Germans.

Or, how many women died in Newfoundland because of a misdiagnosis of cancer in the State health system?

All of this is tragic, but it is naive to believe that Canadians - through their State - do not apply in effect capital punishment.

-------

Here's my point bcsapper: as a society, we kill people. If one wants to oppose abortion on the grounds that "killing is wrong", then it's a weak argument.

For example, Rick Santorum is opposed to abortion yet he approved the US military invasion of Iraq. No doubt that Santorum (or a staffer) can easily explain this apparent contradiction.

Edited May 13, 2013 by August1991

[Peter F]

And by a similar argument, other people want to end their taxation.

If the State has the power to tax - take my body's efforts, then why does its power not extend to a woman's pregnancy?

----

Peter F, if you want to argue in favour of abortion, you should find another argument than: "Women should be free to choose". I think Milton Friedman argued that taxpayers should also be: "Free to Choose"

aw jeez Teach, will there be a make-up exam?

[Guest]

I merely meant to note that if someone argues that a woman should have the right to abortion on the grounds that a woman owns her body, then I wonder about taxation: the State takes about 50% of my efforts, my body.

bcsapper, in a civilized State, it is wrong to believe that individuals are all free to do as we each want.

A woman's right to an abortion is no more obvious than a rich man's right to 60% of his efforts.

But again, no-one would argue we are free to do as we want. You cannot be made a slave, but you will drive on the right, or face sanctions.

A woman's right to have an abortion is her right not to be forced to carry a foetus, and undergo medical procedures. She will also drive on the right.

[scribblet]

That's not data... A pro-lifer says she heard on the radio that some anonymous person said so? I'm convinced! Get your dead fetus signs.... We're going to protest!!

True, and that is part of the problem. We are not being given all the data, they are blocking it's release.

Currently, two provinces (Ontario and British Columbia) have laws that serve to block the promulgation of abortion-related statistics. Indeed, as of 2010, Quebec has stopped submitting data to the Canadian Institute for Health Information. These jurisdictions ensure that any data pertaining to abortion falls outside the parameters of the Freedom of Information Act.