The Political Taboo

[betsy]

The pro-life protest was attended by 8 or 10(?) Conservatives and 3 Liberals. The Conservative party was quick to re-affirm that it has no plan to re-open Abortion.

Some supporters are women who have had abortions, and have now come forward to tell of the pressures they felt from those around them, feeling that there were no other options.

It had been noted on MDuffy that Canada is the only country that offers no protection whatsoever for the unborn child. And as someone pointed out... protection of the seals, the whales are being bitterly fought for...and yet, it's an open season for the unborn child.

Some voted for the Harper government thinking that there IS a hidden agenda...and that re-opening abortion is one of them. I HOPED for a hidden agenda (not only on abortion....but on SSM as well).

No politcal party wants to have that A-word mentioned...it is considered a taboo subject...for it means political suicide.

It may mean political suicide....but with the proper handling and proper "presentation"....it need not be.

A party who will courageously tackle this can be seen in an entirely new light. Someone who can rise well above others. I still think....(and hope)...that sometime down the road, Harper will revisit this controversy again.

[scribblet]

Personally I hope he doesn't, although this shows that the issue isn't going away completely. I don't like to get into abortion debates, I'm pro choice, with limits on late terms. Either way, it is between a woman and her conscience and is not for me to tell her what she should do. I prefer to leave things the way they are now.

Any introduction of this issue will be so divisive it will likely supercede any other issues, and could be the one issue that would bring the liberals back to power.

[BHS]

After a lot of thought, I've come to the conclusion that abortion is a medical option that doesn't require it's own special legal remedy, though I'm personally not in favour of the procedure. I'm hoping the Conservatives can at least pretend like they've arrived at a similar conclusion.

I've mentioned the Roe Effect in previous threads so I won't go into further detail here. Suffice it to say that as time passes and more abortions are carried out there is a decreased zeal for the procedure. And as you've alluded, there is a long-term negative psychological effect on many women who undergo the procedure, especially if later attempts at pregnancy fail.

[Guest Warwick Green]

I see that our friend Mr. Vellacott has enterted the fray, participating in a news conference claiming that research shows a link between abortions and breast cancer. While it is true that such research exists it is by no means widely accepted in the medical community. If Mr. Vellacourt wishes to start talking about abortions and the effect on women's health he should at least try to be objective.

[BHS]

Any introduction of this issue will be so divisive it will likely supercede any other issues, and could be the one issue that would bring the liberals back to power.

Exactly correct. I'm trusting that the upper eschelons of the Conservative party have already figured this out. Abortion won't be a political issue for at least the duration of the present government, unless the Liberals can figure a way of goading dimwitted Conservative backbenchers into taking it to the media. Which is probably a really good strategy for them and I should just keep my mouth shut.

[Guest Warwick Green]

It may mean political suicide....but with the proper handling and proper "presentation"....it need not be.

A party who will courageously tackle this can be seen in an entirely new light. Someone who can rise well above others. I still think....(and hope)...that sometime down the road, Harper will revisit this controversy again.

During the election campaign Harper said he would not introduce legislation on this topic. As far as I am concerned, it is settled.

[BHS]

I see that our friend Mr. Vellacott has enterted the fray, participating in a news conference claiming that research shows a link between abortions and breast cancer. While it is true that such research exists it is by no means widely accepted in the medical community. If Mr. Vellacourt wishes to start talking about abortions and the effect on women's health he should at least try to be objective.

That's one of those studies that really makes me question just how much the scientific community has their act together. It sounds like those studies that showed that people who live near high tension lines have an increased risk of cancer. Which sounds plausible until you realize that given a random sampling of people you can find all sorts of increased cancer risk trends, none of which are borne out by clinical examination.

My gut response to this is, "Saying that cutting into a woman's uterus increases her risk of breast cancer is akin to saying that having warts removed increases your risk of brain lesions, and I'm sure that if they tried hard enough these same researchers could discover a statistical co-relation that would bare my theory out."

[betsy]

Personally I hope he doesn't, although this shows that the issue isn't going away completely. I don't like to get into abortion debates, I'm pro choice, with limits on late terms.

Even though I don't agree with abortion, I still think that it is here to stay. But I would like to see some protective measures for the unborn, especially for late-terms. The Liberals were smart in getting around the issue and establishing it as a "woman's right ".

It will take a strategist of a different kind to tackle and counter-act and make it into a winning platform. Of course, it will need the help of the media to sell and sway society to a different way of thinking.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Personally I hope he doesn't, although this shows that the issue isn't going away completely. I don't like to get into abortion debates, I'm pro choice, with limits on late terms.

Even though I don't agree with abortion, I still think that it is here to stay. But I would like to see some protective measures for the unborn, especially for late-terms. The Liberals were smart in getting around the issue and establishing it as a "woman's right ".

It will take a strategist of a different kind to tackle and counter-act and make it into a winning platform. Of course, it will need the help of the media to sell and sway society to a different way of thinking.

I too could support restrictions in the late term but I believe that all four parties in the HofC are smart to stay away from it. It's too incendiary. The last thing Harper wants is to hear Cheryl Gallant once again quoted in the press.

[Riverwind]

It will take a strategist of a different kind to tackle and counter-act and make it into a winning platform. Of course, it will need the help of the media to sell and sway society to a different way of thinking.

Why would any politician want to touch the issue? There is no abortion law today and there is no evidence that it is being used excessively - it does not make sense to fix something that isn't broken.

[scribblet]

Even though I don't agree with abortion, I still think that it is here to stay. But I would like to see some protective measures for the unborn, especially for late-terms. The Liberals were smart in getting around the issue and establishing it as a "woman's right ".

It will take a strategist of a different kind to tackle and counter-act and make it into a winning platform. Of course, it will need the help of the media to sell and sway society to a different way of thinking.

True, althought he media should be reporting only the facts, not swaying or selling an idea.

Any attempt by a conservative backbencher to introduce limits on late term will be seen and used by the liberals as the beginning of the end. I don't see any middle ground for the CPC on this one. Best to stay away from it as Harper as promised.

[Guest Warwick Green]

It will take a strategist of a different kind to tackle and counter-act and make it into a winning platform. Of course, it will need the help of the media to sell and sway society to a different way of thinking.

Why would any politician want to touch the issue? There is no abortion law today and there is no evidence that it is being used excessively - it does not make sense to fix something that isn't broken.

Actually there is no abortion law. The old one was overturned by the SCOC and Mulroney's efforts to legislate a new one failed. Notwithstanding that abortions after 24 weeks are rare and usually done to protect the woman's health. There is a general feeling that unless there is a huge clamor from the public (unlikely) it will not be possible to get abortion restrictions through Parliament.

It's interesting to note that if you go the list of private members bill introduced into the HofC you will note no bill that would ban abortions. I wonder if the socons are asleep at the switch.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/Bills_House_P...E&Parl=39&Ses=1

There is a group of anti-abortion MPs who are somewhat secretive. They won't even identify who belongs to the group. That shows you how controversial the issue is.

[August1991]

Even though I don't agree with abortion, I still think that it is here to stay. But I would like to see some protective measures for the unborn, especially for late-terms. The Liberals were smart in getting around the issue and establishing it as a "woman's right ".

As to late-term abortions, I suggest you read this link:

Clinton said that when he first heard about the procedure, he thought he would support the bill, but changed his mind after learning more. "I came to understand that this is a rarely used procedure, justifiable as a last resort when doctors judge it necessary to save a woman's life or to avert serious health consequences to her," Clinton said.

CNN

Also Betsy, this is our ongoing Abortion Debate Thread, although there are several others you can easily find by searching.

[no1important]

I saw that. Kinda funny the only politicians were men.

The conservatives claim they not not change abortion law, but they would if they had a majority as they would do with ssm.

It is too bad the liberals can't or won't introduce a bill that would eliminate the "notwithstanding clause" like they said they would do as an election promise if they were elected.

With that Maurice Vellacott taking cheap shots at our highest court and judge and now this, the radical fringe of the party is finally starting to speak.

I also think Harper is slowly loosing his grip on keeping his mp's and party members quiet. The fanatical fringe won't keep quiet much longer either as we saw they had their little protest on abortion already.

[Guest Warwick Green]

I saw that. Kinda funny the only politicians were men.

The conservatives claim they not not change abortion law, but they would if they had a majority as they would do with ssm.

It is too bad the liberals can't or won't introduce a bill that would eliminate the "notwithstanding clause" like they said they would do as an election promise if they were elected.

With that Maurice Vellacott taking cheap shots at our highest court and judge and now this, the radical fringe of the party is finally starting to speak.

I also think Harper is slowly loosing his grip on keeping his mp's and party members quiet. The fanatical fringe won't keep quiet much longer either as we saw they had their little protest on abortion already.

That anti-abortion demonstration (which suprisingly was reported on by The People's Network) takes place annually in Ottawa although interest in it by MPs is going down and each year the numbers of demonstrators are smaller.

The socons in the backbenches have been quiet and Vellacott is an exception. They don't want to upset the apple cart when Harper is trying to appeal to the moderates. Things would be different if the Tories had a majority- they would be more vocal.

Harper has done a good job in keeping the zanies quiet. The only real bout of hatemeistering homophobia came from Larry Spencer and he was quickly disposed of. Still, I doubt Harper is looking forward to the SSM debate. He has to be concerned about what people like Vellcott and his ilk will say.

[scribblet]

http://www.ctv.ca is running a poll, definitely the majority do not want issue opened.

[geoffrey]

I see that our friend Mr. Vellacott has enterted the fray, participating in a news conference claiming that research shows a link between abortions and breast cancer. While it is true that such research exists it is by no means widely accepted in the medical community. If Mr. Vellacourt wishes to start talking about abortions and the effect on women's health he should at least try to be objective.

Right, so instead of discussing scientific studies, we should parade around declare women have the right to anything they damn well please and don't mess with it?

Right on.

We need some law in this country, at least limiting the terms on when an abortion can happen. Currently, a woman can ask her doctor to kill the kid during labour until the child's head is out. Something must not fly with even the most left leaning people when they know this.

We also need parental notification. 14 year olds dumping off a baby every couple of weeks is a serious problem and their parents, however irresponsible they are likely to be to begin with, should at least know about it.

[Guest Warwick Green]

I see that our friend Mr. Vellacott has enterted the fray, participating in a news conference claiming that research shows a link between abortions and breast cancer. While it is true that such research exists it is by no means widely accepted in the medical community. If Mr. Vellacott wishes to start talking about abortions and the effect on women's health he should at least try to be objective.

Right, so instead of discussing scientific studies, we should parade around declare women have the right to anything they damn well please and don't mess with it?

Right on.

We need some law in this country, at least limiting the terms on when an abortion can happen. Currently, a woman can ask her doctor to kill the kid during labour until the child's head is out. Something must not fly with even the most left leaning people when they know this.

We also need parental notification. 14 year olds dumping off a baby every couple of weeks is a serious problem and their parents, however irresponsible they are likely to be to begin with, should at least know about it.

A good discussion is no doubt needed. But one of the big problems with abortion - and why the pols stay away from it - is that the discussion is soon hijacked by the extremists taking over. Did Vellacott say that the research he espouses is controversial? No, he didn't. He led people to believe that the connection between abortion is breast cancer is beyond doubt. Imagine how fast the abortion debate will degenerate if its run by the hard-core anti-abortionists and the feminists?

[Riverwind]

We need some law in this country, at least limiting the terms on when an abortion can happen. Currently, a woman can ask her doctor to kill the kid during labour until the child's head is out.

The line has to be drawn somewhere. That line is no more arbitrary than an line somewhere between 7 and 9 months.

irresponsible they are likely to be to begin with, should at least know about it.

A teen getting an abortion who does not want to tell her parents is likely dealing with parents that might force her to carry the baby to term. No teenager in our society should be having children. A pregnant teen that wants an abortion is making a responsible choice in the circumstances and her parents should not be allowed to prevent her from making that choice.

[Guest Warwick Green]

The line has to be drawn somewhere. That line is no more arbitrary than an line somewhere between 7 and 9 months.

The Brits have a 24-week rule. It's abitrary but it's a lot easier to handle than the old Trudeau rule relating to the woman's health. The UK Tories proposed lowering it to 20 weeks a year or so ago but there was so much opposition that they withdrew it.

[fellowtraveller]

We need some law in this country, at least limiting the terms on when an abortion can happen. Currently, a woman can ask her doctor to kill the kid during labour until the child's head is out.

The line has to be drawn somewhere. That line is no more arbitrary than an line somewhere between 7 and 9 months.

irresponsible they are likely to be to begin with, should at least know about it.

A teen getting an abortion who does not want to tell her parents is likely dealing with parents that might force her to carry the baby to term. No teenager in our society should be having children. A pregnant teen that wants an abortion is making a responsible choice in the circumstances and her parents should not be allowed to prevent her from making that choice.

Would you apply the same criteria to a 13 year old and a 17 year old?

[betsy]

A teen getting an abortion who does not want to tell her parents is likely dealing with parents that might force her to carry the baby to term. No teenager in our society should be having children. A pregnant teen that wants an abortion is making a responsible choice in the circumstances and her parents should not be allowed to prevent her from making that choice.

An 11 year old is the youngest pregnant girl. She's carried it and set to deliver soon. From what I gathered it was the result of rape since a 17 year old was charged with that. Now, for a girl this young...this might be one of those rare cases when a person is endangered giving birth.

However, why would you say a teen that wants an abortion is making a "responsible" choice? Why is it automatically a "responsible" choice?

[Riverwind]

However, why would you say a teen that wants an abortion is making a "responsible" choice? Why is it automatically a "responsible" choice?

The first priority for any teen in our society is to get an education that will allow them to support themselves as adults. Statistics show that teens who try to raise babies are much more likely to end up living in poverty and have kids which have problems. That said, I will take back part of what I said: giving up the baby for adoption would also be a responsible choice. That said, a teen who wants to have an abortion is still making a responsible choice.

[BHS]

]A teen getting an abortion who does not want to tell her parents is likely dealing with parents that might force her to carry the baby to term. No teenager in our society should be having children. A pregnant teen that wants an abortion is making a responsible choice in the circumstances and her parents should not be allowed to prevent her from making that choice.

It's a pretty big leap from "No teen should be forced to have children" to "No teen should be having children". There's quite a note of finality in that second statement. Possibly this because teens are themselves children and are therefore incapable of living up to adult responsibilities. I agree with that sentiment, if not with actually enforcing it. It's almost as if your'e saying that not only should abortion be legal, it should be manditory for minors.

Then you state that teens, who being children otherwise rely on their parents to be responsible for their welfare, should be allowed to sneak around behind their parents' backs to make one of the biggest choices of their entire lives. They aren't responsible for their own livelihood, they aren't responsible enough to practice safe sex (or abstain), and they aren't responsible enough to care for children, but somehow they are magically capable of responsibility when they make a choice that's popular among progressives. Ironically, their newfound responsibility stems from the fact that they are otherwise entirely irresponsible. I don't know that I buy that.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear BHS,

Ironically, their newfound responsibility stems from the fact that they are otherwise entirely irresponsible. I don't know that I buy that.

I would guess that 'bastard children' probably made up more than 50% of the earth's aggregate human population.