Pro Life? Then Don't Run Under Liberal Banner

[cybercoma]

We should emulate Sweden because everybody else is doing it. It's a bandwagon fallacy from folks that can't support their claim that this is a problem that needs to be legislated against.

[Argus]

Take a look around. No party want's to get into the abortion debate.

This actually IS getting into the abortion debate, deliberately, in order to score political points.

[Argus]

And he's saying future candidates need to have their values and consciences aligned with the party stance on these things.

So no room for individual conscience or religious beliefs, right? Everyone has to be aligned with Justin. No more big tent. It's a narrow tent where all your political, religious, ideological and social beliefs must fall precisely into line with the Great Leader.

When I vote for someone on Election Day, it would be nice to know how they will vote on this issue if any of the Tory anti-choicers decide again that they want to tell women what to do with their bodies.

Well, if you're not stupid and lazy you would know that anyway since candidates generally tell you ahead of time. It's not hard to figure out which Tories are pro-life and which are pro-choice. Not hard for liberal candidates either.

Is it a tough position to be in as an MP? Surely. But they're not there to vote with their own feelings; they're there to represent their constituents, not themselves.

There's that too. That's why a number of MPs tend to vote with what their constituents want, given the wide variation in local feelings in this country. The people in a rural riding in northern Saskatchewan might not feel the same as the people in downtown Toronto.

But now, thanks to Justin, it doesn't matter! Because what those people want or think has no value. Their Liberal MP will ignore them on this and any other social issue Justin feels will make him look good.

[Argus]

Allright, so up to 18 weeks into the pregnancy the woman can freely choose to abort. After 18 weeks she cannot.

So Swedens laws suck.

How does that suck? Nor does it say she can't after 18 weeks. It says after 18 weeks the decision goes to the health board.

You do realize that this sort of law is pretty much the norm everywhere, right? At least, in all western countries.

[Argus]

Just so. The idea that we should emulate Sweden because....well, for some unstated reason....doesn't convince me. I consider Canada's position on abortion superior to Sweden's.

Canada has no position on abortion. The Supreme Court said you couldn't ban it, but it didn't say you couldn't control it. In fact, according to Coyne they basically invited the government to rewrite the law. Largely out of political cowardice, the government has not done so. This, even though more than half the people in this country feel there ought to be some controls in place. Again, as Coyne said, for Trudeau to pretend this is a settled issue is nonsense.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/04/new-poll-shows-most-canadians-support-abortion-with-some-restrictions/

Edited May 11, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

We should emulate Sweden because everybody else is doing it. It's a bandwagon fallacy from folks that can't support their claim that this is a problem that needs to be legislated against.

Why do you suppose every other country feels that it needs to be legislated? Are they all stupid?

You never answered me about whether you believe there are no unethical or incompetent doctors in Canada.

[cybercoma]

But now, thanks to Justin, it doesn't matter! Because what those people want or think has no value. Their Liberal MP will ignore them on this and any other social issue Justin feels will make him look good.

Now, those hillbillies that want to control women's right to choose can vote Conservative. They're not Liberals anyway.

[cybercoma]

Why do you suppose every other country feels that it needs to be legislated? Are they all stupid?

You never answered me about whether you believe there are no unethical or incompetent doctors in Canada.

I don't care why other countries are doing it. You tell me why it's necessary. You show me that it's a large enough problem in Canada that it demands prohibition. I'm the one advocating the status quo here. If you demand change, persuade me to believe it's necessary. So far, your argument has been, "But everyone else is doing it!"

Edited May 11, 2014 by cybercoma

[bleeding heart]

Yes, a significant portion of the public wants certain controls legislated over a woman's right to choose....but why?

If you're opposed to abortion, why would it be acceptable before (for example) 18 weeks? If you support a woman's right to choose, why restrict it to 18 weeks...or determine that a "health board" [sic] needs to make the decision for her?

I can understand the principled positions: none at all, or no arbitrary "week" restrictions.

The rest sounds to me like either

1) a sort of stealth attack on reproductive freedom, or

2) a position which is simply ill-considered, ill-thought out.

For most folks, I think it's the second, and is a view unconsciously influenced by anti-abortionists.

Edited May 11, 2014 by bleeding heart

[Argus]

Now, those hillbillies that want to control women's right to choose can vote Conservative. They're not Liberals anyway.

Once again you are reflexively suggesting that anyone who wants some controls on abortion is a 'hillbilly'. Would you fit Swedes into that category? They're probably, in general, more to the left than your average Liberal. What about Fins? They're even further to the left, but they still have controls on abortion. The French and Swiss? The British and Danes? The Dutch and Belgians? Are they all 'hillbilly's or do you use some other contemptuous, pejorative term for people you presume are unsophisticated rural hicks? You know, like the Germans and Japanese?

[Argus]

Yes, a significant portion of the public wants certain controls legislated over a woman's right to choose....but why?

If you're opposed to abortion, why would it be acceptable before (for example) 18 weeks? If you support a woman's right to choose, why restrict it to 18 weeks...or determine that a "health board" [sic] needs to make the decision for her?

I can understand the principled positions: none at all, or no arbitrary "week" restrictions.

The rest sounds to me like either

1) a sort of stealth attack on reproductive freedom, or

2) a position which is simply ill-considered, ill-thought out.

For most folks, I think it's the second, and is a view unconsciously influenced by anti-abortionists.

Abortion is a "relatively" safe operation in its early stages. The later you leave it, though, the more complicated and dangerous it becomes. Once it moves along in time the danger to the woman increases exponentially, and eventually you start getting into ethical issues involving whether or not the fetus could actually survive on its own outside the mother at that point. Do you simply abort it and toss it into the waste bin even if it's healthy and could survive outside the womb?

Edited May 11, 2014 by Argus

[bleeding heart]

Well, if countries like Sweden are the holy Grail, it would appear we are aligned de facto anyway, by practice if not by policy...according to UOttawa stats I looked at, 90% of abortions are performed in the first trimester, and most of the others are performed by 16 weeks (thus beating the super-magical 18 week number anyway).

further still, abortion in Canada is on the low end of numbers in developed countries (though Quebec apparently skews statistics up just slightly).

So for those who think there should be fewer abortions, maybe emulating nations with higher rates is not plainly the direction in which to go.

Edited May 11, 2014 by bleeding heart

[Argus]

Well, if countries like Sweden are the holy Grail, it would appear we are aligned de facto anyway, by practice if not by policy...according to UOttawa stats I looked at, 90% of abortions are performed in the first trimester, and most of the others are performed by 16 weeks (thus beating the super-magical 18 week number anyway).

further still, abortion in Canada is on the low end of numbers in developed countries (though Quebec apparently skews statistics up just slightly).

So for those who think there should be fewer abortions, maybe emulating nations with higher rates is not plainly the direction in which to go.

Are you suggesting regulating abortions causes abortions? You realize that makes no sense, right?

Further, if late term abortions only involve a small percentage of women why are you so determined to avoid any oversight?

[bleeding heart]

I'm not suggesting that regulating abortions causes abortions....I'm saying that regulating abortions does not clearly and unambiguously decrease the number....especially since, as I said, almost all of them occur in the first trimester anyway.

And by the way...when you remarked on the health risks, you of course must have been unaware that childbirth is riskier to a woman's health than abortion...and by a large measure.

Which begs a question that I need not ask, I hope.

[Peter F]

How does that suck? Nor does it say she can't after 18 weeks. It says after 18 weeks the decision goes to the health board.

You do realize that this sort of law is pretty much the norm everywhere, right? At least, in all western countries.

It sucks because it says after 18 weeks the decision goes to the health board.

I do indeed realize that this sort of law is pretty much the norm everywhere and that sucks too.

[Argus]

I'm not suggesting that regulating abortions causes abortions....I'm saying that regulating abortions does not clearly and unambiguously decrease the number..

I don't think that's the goal of regulation.

And by the way...when you remarked on the health risks, you of course must have been unaware that childbirth is riskier to a woman's health than abortion...and by a large measure.

How much more dangerous is it to give birth as opposed to having an abortion in the 20th, or 23rd or 25th week?

[monty16]

Those who really care will approach the problem as a social problem with which we should be dealing. That would be, the reasons women seek abortions and also the reason why irresponsible men are making women pregnant with unwanted pregnancies.

But alas, the political right would think of doing something like that as communist, pinko, socialist, etc., etc. Makes more sense to them to 'take out' doctors who perform abortions to save women from coathangers in back allies.

[Argus]

Those who really care will approach the problem as a social problem with which we should be dealing. That would be, the reasons women seek abortions and also the reason why irresponsible men are making women pregnant with unwanted pregnancies.

But alas, the political right would think of doing something like that as communist, pinko, socialist, etc., etc. Makes more sense to them to 'take out' doctors who perform abortions to save women from coathangers in back allies.

Lotta desperate women going into back alleys to use coat hangars in Sweden are there?

Btw, why is it 'women' vs 'irresponsible men'? Just curious. Shouldn't it be "irresponsible women and irresponsible men"?

[monty16]

Yes, of course Argus, it's irresponsible women as much as it's irresponsible men. That's my whole point that you seem to be trying to evade. So once again, it's an issue of our social responsibility to educate both women and men on the horrors of abortions for women. And it's got nothing to do with whether or not the god thinks it's a bad idea to terminate a pregnancy.

I'm just trying to get somebody to disagree with the 'social' aspect of it but maybe they don't want to go there?

[WestCoastRunner]

Yes, of course Argus, it's irresponsible women as much as it's irresponsible men.

In many cases an unplanned pregnancy occurs even when birth control is in use by both parties. Birth control is not 100% effective.

[monty16]

WestCoastRunner, So what?

Unless you are trying to suggest that birth control measures are evil because it kills babies? Or just don't 'do it' because it's not for fun?

Or you're taking a responsible position and suggesting that men and women should be further educated on the fact that birth control measures are not infallible? Like take better precautions?

[bleeding heart]

Well, I don't know, argus...you keep making claims, and then asking me to research them..

Which, being a friendly sort, I have so far done.

but now you ask how dangerous later-term abortions (the tiny minority) are compared to live births.

I don't know. Neither do you...so why not look it up?

[Big Guy]

The problem is that men cannot get pregnant. If they could, it might change peoples position on abortion.

[Keepitsimple]

Yes, a significant portion of the public wants certain controls legislated over a woman's right to choose....but why?

Why do you question their motives? The fact is - as you've agreed - is that there is a "significant portion of the public". Yet you choose to dismiss all of them because they don't totally agree with your all or nothing abortion on demand. This is the scary position of a segment of our voters, usually found on the Left - they are totally exclusionary of those who do not agree.....and that is precisely what is troubling about young Trudeau's "policy".

[On Guard for Thee]

Canada has no position on abortion. The Supreme Court said you couldn't ban it, but it didn't say you couldn't control it. In fact, according to Coyne they basically invited the government to rewrite the law. Largely out of political cowardice, the government has not done so. This, even though more than half the people in this country feel there ought to be some controls in place. Again, as Coyne said, for Trudeau to pretend this is a settled issue is nonsense.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/04/new-poll-shows-most-canadians-support-abortion-with-some-restrictions/

The SC said it is a decision to be made between a woman and her doctor. Not a woman and her doctor others.