Pro Life? Then Don't Run Under Liberal Banner

[cybercoma]

Do I take it from this you have no interest in and will never make any comment on 'internal Conservative party politics'?

you can take from this that I'm asking someone to clarify their interest in internal Liberal politics. I don't see why this is important at all.

[segnosaur]

you can take from this that I'm asking someone to clarify their interest in internal Liberal politics. I don't see why this is important at all.

Its already been explained to you multiple times: his actions as leader of the opposition and head of the Liberal party hint at how he might act if and when he becomes prime minister. Running roughshod over members of his party (e.g. requiring them to be pro-choice), kicking the senators out of the party (when at the time he might not have had the authority to do so) suggest an individual who is at least as "dictatorial" (if not more), as Harper is purported to be, and just as willing to engage in dirty politics.

Its useful to know that as potential voters, and its also valuable to understand that lest others attempt to portray Trudeau in an undeserving light.

If you still don't understand, I really don't know how to make it clearer to you.

[overthere]

I want details on Trudeaus secret agenda

[Smallc]

It's not a secret. That's the point.

[monty16]

What of this NDP motion? In a political climate where the Abortion debate has no chance of being re-opened. . . Why are Liberals and the NDP trying to re-open it?

All the Conservatives need do is ignore Trudeau and the whole issue by not taking a position. And besides, if the truth is known they're not concerned about killing a fetus as much as they are concerned with maintaining men's power over women. Just ask them! LOL

[Boges]

And besides, if the truth is known they're not concerned about killing a fetus as much as they are concerned with maintaining men's power over women. Just ask them! LOL

That's a completely unsubstantiated claim. There are plenty of women who oppose abortion.

[Peter F]

I'm merely pointing out that your belief that the decision would be wholly hers is rather naive given the nature of the communities involved which are most likely to engage in this practice.

I don't think there is such a thing as complete control of anything. As westcoast has already pointed out, if a woman wants a late term abortion she will have to get approval from someone in authority in the hospital in which it takes place.

Rather naive huh. You got some figures to back up certain communities most likely to engage ?

I may be pleasantly naive but I'm no bigot.

So if a woman must get approval from someone in authority for an abortion...right now - today... then what would be the purpose of these abortion regulations?

[monty16]

It's got to be abortion on demand in Canada or it's going to be Harper's government's way. And all that is necessary now if for Harper's cronies in gov to be coaxed into the debate. Then next the guns come out and the crazies start hunting down Canadian doctors.

They're begging for a fight and this is just Trudeau's way of nipping it in the bud. It's not for Canadians!

[segnosaur]

That's a completely unsubstantiated claim.

Yes, monty16 seems to be bordering on troll-like activity... posting inflammatory remarks, and then when challenged he runs away, or reposts the same crud.

I wonder if he understands that he is actually tarnishing the image of the "left wing" by such childish behavior?

[On Guard for Thee]

A woman has the right to choose throughout Europe, too, but that doesn't mean there aren't laws in place governing the time period and circumstances for later term abortions. Are you going to suggest Swedes don't have the right to choose?

Not my job to worry about Sweden. However in Canada statistics are hard to come by because clinics and hospitals are not required to report gestational age of abortions, however numerous authorities including the Canadian Medical Association report that few if any doctors in this country will perform elective abortions beyond 20 weeks. In which case the system is essentially self regulating without all the horrorshow re-opening this debate would create. And for the life of me, I can't imagine a woman all of a sudden waking up one morning after being pregnant for 20 weeks plus and deciding oh I guess I'll pop down for an abortion this morning.

[segnosaur]

Not my job to worry about Sweden.

I think the point was...

Sweden HAS an abortion law. Canada has none.... yet Sweden hasn't descended into a misogynistic hell-hole where women are viewed as second class citizens... A suggestion that Canada should have some law (even if its simply codifying the current situation... abortion on demand in the early stages, but with restrictions for late term abortions) is always taken by those on the political left as attacking women.

...however numerous authorities including the Canadian Medical Association report that few if any doctors in this country will perform elective abortions beyond 20 weeks. In which case the system is essentially self regulating without all the horrorshow re-opening this debate would create.

Yes, it is self regulating. Of course, in theory it doesn't prevent some doctor from setting up a clinic offering "abortions up to the 9th month for anybody!", something most Canadians would probably object to. Or gender-selective abortions.

Of course, if you mention any of this, those on the left stamp their feat and yell "PRO-CHOICE!", ignoring the great middle ground that most Canadians fall into.

...without all the horrorshow re-opening this debate would create.

Then why aren't you condemning Trudeau for his actions?

The conservative government had no plans to address the abortion issue (and any conservative MP who raised the issue would not see his efforts go very far.) And even without Trudeau's "pro-choice MPs Only" policy, its unlikely that a future Liberal government would have made any changes either. I would have been quite happy to let the issue lie dormant; I'm comfortable enough with the situation as it stands.... yet Trudeau was the one that dragged the issue out like a beached whale in the sun.... something that smells bad and risks exploding, covering everyone in debris.

And for the life of me, I can't imagine a woman all of a sudden waking up one morning after being pregnant for 20 weeks plus and deciding oh I guess I'll pop down for an abortion this morning.

Keep in mind that the gender of a fetus can be determined around the 20th week. And there is evidence that some women do abort fetuses if they are the wrong gender. (A study by the Canadian medical association found that women of Indian origin had a sharp increase in the number of boys compared to girls for the 3rd child born into families.) So, she may not want an abortion just for the fun of it, but she may be pressured by family or her culture to produce a boy.

Now, that is (in my opinion) no reason to ban abortions... I think that there are better ways to handle the issue. But there IS a problem.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/04/17/immigrants-using-sex-selective-abortion

[cybercoma]

Its already been explained to you multiple times: his actions as leader of the opposition and head of the Liberal party hint at how he might act if and when he becomes prime minister. Running roughshod over members of his party (e.g. requiring them to be pro-choice), kicking the senators out of the party (when at the time he might not have had the authority to do so) suggest an individual who is at least as "dictatorial" (if not more), as Harper is purported to be, and just as willing to engage in dirty politics.

Its useful to know that as potential voters, and its also valuable to understand that lest others attempt to portray Trudeau in an undeserving light.

If you still don't understand, I really don't know how to make it clearer to you.

And I wasn't asking you again. Argus seemed to misunderstand what I was saying.

Edited May 14, 2014 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

It's really simple, guys. Show that the law is necessary. Persuade people that there's a problem and we need to do this. Appealing to opinions and emotions isn't going to do that. Start showing some empirical evidence, so people can see the scope and depth of the problem. Until then, the arguments that we "need" law just because it hurts your sensibilities to imagine situations that haven't been shown to be true are unconvincing.

[segnosaur]

And I wasn't asking you again. Argus seemed to misunderstand what I was saying.

Your earlier posting finished with the phrase: I don't see why this is important at all.

It certainly looked like the present tense, implying that even after the earlier explanations you still didn't see the importance. If it was something you didn't understand before but was now explained, you should have said "I didn't see why it is important".

Or if you had some sort of reasoning why it shouldn't be important even after the explanation (such as "trustworthyness should never be an issue when evaluating candidates") then you should have mentioned it.

[cybercoma]

Thank you for the lesson in semantics.

[On Guard for Thee]

I think the point was...

Sweden HAS an abortion law. Canada has none.... yet Sweden hasn't descended into a misogynistic hell-hole where women are viewed as second class citizens... A suggestion that Canada should have some law (even if its simply codifying the current situation... abortion on demand in the early stages, but with restrictions for late term abortions) is always taken by those on the political left as attacking women.

Yes, it is self regulating. Of course, in theory it doesn't prevent some doctor from setting up a clinic offering "abortions up to the 9th montH for anybody!", something most Canadians would probably object to. Or gender-selective abortions.

Of course, if you mention any of this, those on the left stamp their feat and yell "PRO-CHOICE!", ignoring the great middle ground that most Canadians fall into.

Then why aren't you condemning Trudeau for his actions?

The conservative government had no plans to address the abortion issue (and any conservative MP who raised the issue would not see his efforts go very far.) And even without Trudeau's "pro-choice MPs Only" policy, its unlikely that a future Liberal government would have made any changes either. I would have been quite happy to let the issue lie dormant; I'm comfortable enough with the situation as it stands.... yet Trudeau was the one that dragged the issue out like a beached whale in the sun.... something that smells bad and risks exploding, covering everyone in debris.

Keep in mind that the gender of a fetus can be determined around the 20th week. And there is evidence that some women do abort fetuses if they are the wrong gender. (A study by the Canadian medical association found that women of Indian origin had a sharp increase in the number of boys compared to girls for the 3rd child born into families.) So, she may not want an abortion just for the fun of it, but she may be pressured by family or her culture to produce a boy.

Now, that is (in my opinion) no reason to ban abortions... I think that there are better ways to handle the issue. But there IS a problem.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/04/17/immigrants-using-sex-selective-abortion

The gender statistics you speak of could be pointing to something that is concern, although at 20 weeks you are running into that usual deadline of elective abortion. On the political side of that, keep in mind that Harper shot down Warawa's attempt to table a gender specific bill. The political sideshow though is not what concerns me as much as those unethical doctors you speak of. Making laws against abortion is just good for business for them. They were certainly around when abortion was totally illegal here and helped enforce the argument for decriminalization, and finally taking it out of the criminal code altogether.

[cybercoma]

In any case, regarding the OP and late term abortion bans, I've said already why they're a bad idea. The problem is that life-threatening situations are not always immediately evident and situations worsen over time. The decision to abort is often required immediately and without hesitation. Legislation creates barriers to the doctor and patient's decisions. Take the woman in Ireland recently who was denied and abortion, even though they're allowed in life-threatening situations, and died as a result. http://www.thenation.com/blog/171285/justice-savita These are the kinds of situations that will undoubtedly happen when doctors and patients need to struggle with legality in situations where life-and-death may not be entirely clear. At the end of the day, abortion is about a person's bodily autonomy. She has full control over how her body is used. Any legislation that takes decision making away from her about her body violates her rights and freedoms.

[segnosaur]

It's really simple, guys. Show that the law is necessary. Persuade people that there's a problem and we need to do this. Appealing to opinions and emotions isn't going to do that. Start showing some empirical evidence, so people can see the scope and depth of the problem. Until then, the arguments that we "need" law just because it hurts your sensibilities to imagine situations that haven't been shown to be true are unconvincing.

First of all, who said we actually need a law? We're condemning Trudeau for dragging up an issue that would probably be best left alone, in a way that makes us question his leadership skills. That's different than us arguing "We need a law".

If we did have a law, it would simply be one codifying what happens now in common practice... abortion on demand in the early stages, but with restrictions for late terms. Want a reason? Go back and look at my earlier posting where I pointed to gender-selective abortions... They do happen. Its an ugly byproduct of allowing abortion on demand. And while some steps can be taken (such as limiting non-essential ultrasounds) you can never totally eliminate the chance a parent will find the sex of a fetus.

[cybercoma]

As far as gender selection abortions, there's still nothing you can do. I completely disagree with it. It should never happen, but even with a ban, these women will still find a way to abort these babies or force a miscarriage. Abortion doesn't disappear just because it's made illegal. It goes underground and threatens the lives and the health of the pregnant.

[cybercoma]

First of all, who said we actually need a law? We're condemning Trudeau for dragging up an issue that would probably be best left alone, in a way that makes us question his leadership skills. That's different than us arguing "We need a law".

If we did have a law, it would simply be one codifying what happens now in common practice... abortion on demand in the early stages, but with restrictions for late terms. Want a reason? Go back and look at my earlier posting where I pointed to gender-selective abortions... They do happen. Its an ugly byproduct of allowing abortion on demand. And while some steps can be taken (such as limiting non-essential ultrasounds) you can never totally eliminate the chance a parent will find the sex of a fetus.

Late term abortions do happen in Canada. Right now there's no other considerations but those between the doctor and patient. The government doesn't need to get involved in that.

[segnosaur]

Keep in mind that the gender of a fetus can be determined around the 20th week. And there is evidence that some women do abort fetuses if they are the wrong gender.

The gender statistics you speak of could be pointing to something that is concern, although at 20 weeks you are running into that usual deadline of elective abortion.

Technically I said that they could find the sex around 20 weeks... From my googling, I found that ultrasounds can sometimes determine the sex at 18 weeks, well within the 20 week limit. (And there are other methods that could find the sex even earlier still.)

On the political side of that, keep in mind that Harper shot down Warawa's attempt to table a gender specific bill.

Uhhh.... so?

Any bill would likely have been quite useless. And of course consider the fat that while Harper did shoot down Warawa's attempts, at least the MP had the chance to speak his mind... Trudeau is being even more of an authoritarian in silencing his MPs. (Under Trudeau's rules, they wouldn't be able to bring in a bill either, since they are in theory completely "pro choice".)

The political sideshow though is not what concerns me as much as those unethical doctors you speak of. Making laws against abortion is just good for business for them. They were certainly around when abortion was totally illegal here and helped enforce the argument for decriminalization, and finally taking it out of the criminal code altogether.

Your argument makes no sense.

Under the current system, the decision to terminate the pregnancy is up to the woman, and she does not have to tell the doctor why she wants the procedure done... the doctor could be 100% honest and ethical, and is just performing a task that's being (legally) requested of him.

It has nothing to do with the doctors themselves.

[segnosaur]

Late term abortions do happen in Canada. Right now there's no other considerations but those between the doctor and patient. The government doesn't need to get involved in that.

So, what you're saying is that you have no problem with gender-selective abortions. Got it.

[cybercoma]

So, what you're saying is that you have no problem with gender-selective abortions. Got it.

As far as gender selection abortions . . . I completely disagree with it. It should never happen, but even with a ban, these women will still find a way to abort. . .

What I'm saying is exactly what I said.

[Wayward Son]

So, what you're saying is that you have no problem with gender-selective abortions. Got it.

I take it you are no longer even trying to take this discussion seriously?

[On Guard for Thee]

Technically I said that they could find the sex around 20 weeks... From my googling, I found that ultrasounds can sometimes determine the sex at 18 weeks, well within the 20 week limit. (And there are other methods that could find the sex even earlier still.)

Uhhh.... so?

Any bill would likely have been quite useless. And of course consider the fat that while Harper did shoot down Warawa's attempts, at least the MP had the chance to speak his mind... Trudeau is being even more of an authoritarian in silencing his MPs. (Under Trudeau's rules, they wouldn't be able to bring in a bill either, since they are in theory completely "pro choice".)

Your argument makes no sense.

Under the current system, the decision to terminate the pregnancy is up to the woman, and she does not have to tell the doctor why she wants the procedure done... the doctor could be 100% honest and ethical, and is just performing a task that's being (legally) requested of him.

It has nothing to do with the doctors themselves.

Talk about not making sense, think about it. If a woman can find out she is having a girl and is still within that ethical period and decided to get an abortion, how will you prove she is having it because her baby will be female? That is probably one reason Harper came down on Warawa's bill. If you can tell a woman she can't have an abortion because you suspect she is doing based on gender, out of the woodwork come those unethical doctors.