Peter F Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 That's not what it very clearly says. That applies to termination of pregnancy after 18 weeks only. read section 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 (edited) First, I haven't advocated new abortion laws. I'm neutral on the subject, leaning towards some sort of Sweden style controls. Again: on what basis? Second, as far as I know nobody in Canada has done any studies. I just think everone who is suggesting this is some kind of evil right-wing scheme is silly given places like Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway and France have such laws in place. So there is no evidence that the CMA's figures on this (that only around 1 per cent of abortions take place after 21 weeks) are wrong or that there's an issue with unscrupulous doctors aborting fetuses at the last second. So again: what problem would something like Sweden-style controls actually solve? Harper is a control freak. Sure. Granted. But as I said earlier, everyone here and on the Left has railed against that for years, and yet none of them is complaining that Justin Trudeau seems to be showing signs of being even worse! I think you'd consider me part of that bunch and I have an issue with his hypocrisy here. Nor am I alone, so it's a bit of a broad brush you're using. Edited May 9, 2014 by Black Dog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 According to figures from WHO, even with the mishmash of US laws/stances on the subject, the rate of abortion in Europe is about 50% higher than that of North America, among women between 15 and 44. It would seem that laws against abortion don't do much to curtail them, only to increase the number of illegal/unsafe procedures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 As trained seals? Remember, he didn't even bother to consult his caucus before imposing this rule. Just like he didn't consult them or senators before tossing out the senators. I think it's clear that Justin Trudeau is one of those lefties who can't tolerate disagreement. We can't sit on these forums and complain that the Liberals need a direction and purpose, that they've been a brokerage party that stands for nothing for too long, only to turn around and complain when the new Liberal leader stands firm on things and gives the party purpose and an identity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 The radical Left's version of "pro-choice" is actually Abortion on Demand - they don't want doctors or maternal consultant's advice - they simply want to make a decision on their own and get to the clinic......and that can often create all sorts of later-in-life regrets and trauma. But that's what the radical Left wants - Abortion on Demand. Look around the world - the vast majority of every population has compromised and there is no "Abortion on Demand". So if anyone says "Abortion on Demand is not really what we mean"....then think about it - what do you mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monty16 Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 Argus, some of us think that anybody who takes a totally con stand on abortion shouldn't be allowed to be an MP. It's the kind of irrational dogma they immerse themselves in south of the border. JT obviously understands there are sensible limitations but he's going to let Harper's boys and girls spew out their hate on the issue. Regardless of whether Stephen is afraid of it or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 The radical Left's version of "pro-choice" is actually Abortion on Demand Abortion on Demand exists now. It's not radical. It's reality. Radical means throwing out the current system and replacing it with something entirely different. The conservative position, that is the status quo position is abortion on demand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 The radical notion that a person should decide when their uterus is used for birthing a child. So radical. Making decisions about your own body and how it's used...what a foreign concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monty16 Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 Keepitsimple, Yes keep it simple and say we want abortion of demand. But be socially responsible and try to eliminate the reasons why a woman would want an abortion. No decent person in a democracy should expect to dictate to women any more than that. Let's not be Nazis like the US and force women to carry an unwanted child, let's try to help women who want abortions proactively before they even feel a need for an abortion. Why, it's as if everyone doesn't already know that women consider abortion the last resort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 So if anyone says "Abortion on Demand is not really what we mean"....then think about it - what do you mean? It may surprise many of the men on this forum who are against abortion that women do not become pregnant by immaculate conception, so why are fingers constantly pointing at the women and not the fathers of these babies. Men need to take on more responsibility. JT understands how important it is to protect a women's right to safe and accessible abortion. There is no shame and there should be no secrecy. Women who have abortions do not make the decision lightly and why would they when it is a painful, traumatic experience that they live with for the rest of their lives. Close to 50 per cent of women choosing abortions already have a child so this procedure is not being used as a means of birth control by young people as is the common misconception. Every pregnancy is sometimes just not meant to be and it's time to de-stygmitize this procedure. I do not think that this issue is dead any longer. Witness the fact that two provinces (NB and PEI) no longer provide the necessary medical procedures free of cost to women due to the closing of the Morgentaler abortion clinic (unless two doctors agree that it is medically necessary). The end result will be that women will resort to unlicensed abortion providers and some women will die. Let's hope that this issue does not die and go away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 Keepitsimple, Yes keep it simple and say we want abortion of demand. But be socially responsible and try to eliminate the reasons why a woman would want an abortion. No decent person in a democracy should expect to dictate to women any more than that. Let's not be Nazis like the US and force women to carry an unwanted child, let's try to help women who want abortions proactively before they even feel a need for an abortion. Why, it's as if everyone doesn't already know that women consider abortion the last resort. The laws are vastly different from state to state in the US. Let's not broadbrush the country now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 (edited) I do not think that this issue is dead any longer. Witness the fact that two provinces (NB and PEI) no longer provide the necessary medical procedures free of cost to women due to the closing of the Morgentaler abortion clinic (unless two doctors agree that it is medically necessary). The end result will be that women will resort to unlicensed abortion providers and some women will die. Let's hope that this issue does not die and go away. Correction: Per Regulation 84-20 of the Medical Services Act, NB pays for abortions when it is approved by two physicians who refer the pregnant person in writing to an OBGYN. The OBGYN then has to book time in a hospital to do the procedure. These hurdles are identical to the exemption in the Criminal Code that was struck down by the supreme court in 1988 in R v Morgentaler. It also goes against the R v Morgentaler 1993 decision that declared provincial regulations on abortion criminal law and therefore outside the power of the provinces So what New Brunswick is doing is against the law, it's not strictly true that they're not providing the procedure. They're just creating barriers so that it's nearly impossible to have the procedure done and covered by Medicaid. In July when the Morgentaler Clinic closes in Fredericton, women won't even have a private alternative. Edited May 10, 2014 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 Correction: Per Regulation 84-20 of the Medical Services Act, NB pays for abortions when it is approved by two physicians who refer the pregnant person in writing to an OBGYN. The OBGYN then has to book time in a hospital to do the procedure. These hurdles are identical to the exemption in the Criminal Code that was struck down by the supreme court in 1988 in R v Morgentaler. It also goes against the R v Morgentaler 1993 decision that declared provincial regulations on abortion criminal law and therefore outside the power of the provinces So what New Brunswick is doing is against the law, it's not strictly true that they're not providing the procedure. They're just creating barriers so that it's nearly impossible to have the procedure done and covered by Medicaid. In July when the Morgentaler Clinic closes in Fredericton, women won't even have a private alternative. This is why I mentioned "unless two doctors agree that it is medically necessary). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 A member from BC tried to introduce a private members bill twice and it was shot down both times. Harper has stated more than once he won't reopen the debate. So yep, I think it is a dead issue. As I mentioned previously, I hope it is not a dead issue. Let's look at the east coast issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 If anyone wants to know why the court ruled this way in 1988, Chief Justice Dickson and Justice Lamer wrote, "Forcing a woman by threat of criminal sanction to carry a fetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and thus an infringement of security of the person." Emphasis mine.Justice Wilson went further and wrote, "The right to 'liberty' contained in s. 7 guarantees to every individual a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting his or her private life. Liberty in a free and democratic society does not require the state to approve such decisions but it does require the state to respect them. A woman’s decision to terminate her pregnancy falls within this class of protected decisions. It is one that will have profound psychological, economic and social consequences for her…. It is not just a medical decision; it is a profound social and ethical one as well." Emphasis again mine.The decision here is clear. The state cannot make laws that takes the decision away from the pregnant person. Full stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 This is why I mentioned "unless two doctors agree that it is medically necessary). So you did. Sorry. I was skimming and missed that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 a very good post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 (edited) I should further note that Justice Wilson also allowed for limits when she noted that any legislation should be proportional to the gestational period of the fetus. However, the law that takes the decision out of the pregnant person's hands for any abortion, even first trimester, does not pass this proportionality test. However, this was her sole opinion and was not written about by Larner and Dickson, as far as I recall. Edited May 10, 2014 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 I should further note that Justice Wilson also allowed for limits when she noted that any legislation should be proportional to the gestational period of the fetus. However, the law that takes the decision out of the pregnant person's hands for any abortion, even first trimester, does not pass this proportionality test. However, this was her sole opinion and was not written about by Larner and Dickson, as far as I recall. I hope this information isn't too technical for some of our readers who can't comprehend the reasons behind a woman's decision to obtain an abortion. A lot of knee jerk reactions take place when it comes to the debate surrounding abortions. Let's hope that folks from all partisans contemplate this issue keeping in mind the partners involved in this decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 Women who have abortions do not make the decision lightly and why would they when it is a painful, traumatic experience that they live with for the rest of their lives. Precisely........and that is probably true in the vast majority of cases......but there are many situations where women can make an impulsive decision that haunts them due to youthful naivity, anxiety, or other situational stress. Does it seem so wrong to ensure these vulnerable women have all the information, perspective and time they need to make the right decision? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 If you can't trust a woman to make this decision, then how can you trust her to raise a child? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 If you can't trust a woman to make this decision, then how can you trust her to raise a child? your comment is nothing but trite moralizing - shallow comments in the face of a complex issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 Correction: Per Regulation 84-20 of the Medical Services Act, NB pays for abortions when it is approved by two physicians who refer the pregnant person in writing to an OBGYN. The OBGYN then has to book time in a hospital to do the procedure. Given how hard it is and how long it takes to get an appt with a GP much less a specialist, the fetus would be a teenager by the time the procedure was done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted May 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 The issue was the declaration by JT that if you are pro-life then you will not run under the Liberal banner. This is a major shift in the traditional Liberal policy. He has obviously drawn a line in the sand. He has also declared the Liberal position on the Senate, same sex marriage and marijuana use. Critics have been bemoaning the fact that he has no policy - looks like he has. Is this too early in the game to paint yourself into a policy corner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 Precisely........and that is probably true in the vast majority of cases......but there are many situations where women can make an impulsive decision that haunts them due to youthful naivity, anxiety, or other situational stress. Does it seem so wrong to ensure these vulnerable women have all the information, perspective and time they need to make the right decision? And who would you suggest give them this information if not their doctor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.