This will likely be my last blog entry on the topic of abortion for a long while. When emotion comes into play rationale discussion becomes almost impossible. And there is no shortage of emotion on either side of this contentious issue. One need only glance over the 40 or so comments my two most recent entries have generated to see that reasonable debate is at best rare.
One of the biggest stumbling blocks is the dearth of solid information and statistics on abortion in general and late term abortion in particular. Most of the data presented typically comes from advocates for one side or the other, from either the Pro-Choice or Pro-Life camps.
I attempted to stake out what I thought would be reasonably safe ground, that of placing restrictions only in the case of 'late-term' abortions where the health of the mother and/or child wasn't in question. Even Henry Morgentaler, a saint in the eyes of Pro-Choice advocates, is quoted as having issues with terminating pregnancies around the 24 week mark.
One of the biggest stumbling blocks is the dearth of solid information and statistics on abortion in general and late term abortion in particular. Most of the data presented typically comes from advocates for one side or the other, from either the Pro-Choice or Pro-Life camps.
I attempted to stake out what I thought would be reasonably safe ground, that of placing restrictions only in the case of 'late-term' abortions where the health of the mother and/or child wasn't in question. Even Henry Morgentaler, a saint in the eyes of Pro-Choice advocates, is quoted as having issues with terminating pregnancies around the 24 week mark.
The crux of the matter is the question of whether or not such procedures even take place. If no late-term abortions ever take place then the entire debate is moot and not even worth pursuing. But as I mentioned, there is not a lot of information available. I haven't been able to come up with any concrete numbers, I did however come across something of interest.
What I came across is a group called 'Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada' or ARCC for short. This is a decidedly Pro-Choice group, one that was cited at least once in comments to my previous two posts on this topic. Lest there be any doubts about their commitment to the Pro-Choice movement I invite you to read their Mission and Vision Statements here: http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/mission.html
What I came across is a group called 'Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada' or ARCC for short. This is a decidedly Pro-Choice group, one that was cited at least once in comments to my previous two posts on this topic. Lest there be any doubts about their commitment to the Pro-Choice movement I invite you to read their Mission and Vision Statements here: http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/mission.html
ARCC put out a position paper entitled "Late Term Abortions (after 20 weeks)" which is available on-line in PDF form: http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/postionpapers/22-Late-term-Abortions.PDF
According to the statistics provided by ARCC only 0.4% of abortions taking place in Canada occur after the 20 week mark. They state the reason these abortions take place is because the fetus is gravely or fatally impaired, or that the woman's life or physical health is at risk...or both. In the absence of conflicting data I'm willing to accept these numbers as accurate. And being one who considers himself fair and reasonable, I certainly would never be in favour of restricting a woman's access to an abortion on these grounds, irrespective of how many weeks into the pregnancy.
But even ARCC concedes that not all late term abortions fall into this category. They make the point that:
But even ARCC concedes that not all late term abortions fall into this category. They make the point that:
"Most women who terminate their pregnancies after 20 weeks wanted to have a child, and were forced to consider abortion for medical reasons. Other women may be in desperate social circumstances, such as an abusive relationship, or they may be very young teenagers who have delayed abortion care because they were in denial about the pregnancy".
Later the paper goes on to say:
"However, most of the very small number of abortions performed over 20 weeks gestation in Canada are done to protect the woman's physical health, or because of serious fetal abnormalities".
Comments are welcomed, I read them all. Feel free to pass this blog entry along via email or through a social network like FaceBook, just click on the ‘Share This’ icon below.
The key word here is "most". Most does not mean all, leaving me no alternative but to infer that there are in fact late term abortions taking place in Canada for reasons other than the health of the mother and/or child. The question is pretty straight forward at this point. Should Canada create legislation to protect viable fetuses (those so far developed even Mr. Morgentaler calls them babies) except in cases where the life of the mother and/or fetus-baby is at risk?
My opinion? Absolutely.
That's not to say I'm not empathetic to the teenager who was in denial about her pregnancy, or the woman in an abusive relationship. But that empathy does not go so far as to condone the killing of a viable and healthy living human being. I know some consider the removal of abortion from the criminal code as progressive. But isn't true progression extending rights and legal protection to those most vulnerable?
Some will see any restriction, no matter how small as a potential wedge. And we are talking about something small. Something that only happens in very rare instances, a small percentage of the .04% of total abortions taking place according to ARCC. Assuming 200,000 abortions in a year, with 800 being late-term (using ARCC's .4% number), let's assume that only .4% occur for reasons other than mother/fetal health. We're talking about restricting abortion in 3 or 4 cases out of every 200,000.
It would not deprive women of their choice to have an abortion. All it would do is place a time constraint on when the procedure could take place unless there were health issues for the mother and/or fetus.
My opinion? Absolutely.
That's not to say I'm not empathetic to the teenager who was in denial about her pregnancy, or the woman in an abusive relationship. But that empathy does not go so far as to condone the killing of a viable and healthy living human being. I know some consider the removal of abortion from the criminal code as progressive. But isn't true progression extending rights and legal protection to those most vulnerable?
Some will see any restriction, no matter how small as a potential wedge. And we are talking about something small. Something that only happens in very rare instances, a small percentage of the .04% of total abortions taking place according to ARCC. Assuming 200,000 abortions in a year, with 800 being late-term (using ARCC's .4% number), let's assume that only .4% occur for reasons other than mother/fetal health. We're talking about restricting abortion in 3 or 4 cases out of every 200,000.
It would not deprive women of their choice to have an abortion. All it would do is place a time constraint on when the procedure could take place unless there were health issues for the mother and/or fetus.
Comments are welcomed, I read them all. Feel free to pass this blog entry along via email or through a social network like FaceBook, just click on the ‘Share This’ icon below.
Back to Canadian Soapbox Home
Posts
Seed Newsvine
30 comments:
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're saying is that just for the sake of keeping three (3) abortions from happening (by women in desperate straits, no less), we should be introducing legislation that would then be challenged relentlessly by anti-choicers to make it more & more restrictive, putting all abortion rights at risk? (Not to mention the monumental waste of court time and taxpayers' money, just look stateside for all the evidence you need of that outcome.)
With all due respect, that just doesn't make much sense to me.
You know, Gordo, there's nothing that gripes my wagger more than someone who shows up late to a discussion, then pompously announces that he is the one who shall "cut through the rhetoric," who shall plumb the issue, and who shall finally be the voice of reason and enlighten the opposing sides to the point where they will suddenly both exclaim, wide-eyed, "Wow, Gord! We'd never thought of it that way! Thanks ever so much for resolving this contentious debate once and for all."
With all due respect, Gord, fuck you and the sanctimonious horse you rode in on.
This debate has been going on a lot longer than you've been paying attention, and I think I'm safe in suggesting that you haven't provided any new content one way or the other.
Rather, you've been little more than a useful idiot, happily regurgitating long-debunked anti-choice talking points as if no one's ever thought of them before.
Trust me, Gord, we don't need uneducated wanks like you just showing up, cracking open a Coors Lite, then proceeding to lecture the rest of us on the shortage of "rationale [sic] discussion" and "the dearth of solid information" and how you're going to magnanimously educate the rest of us on what you see as "the crux of the matter" as if we'd never seriously considered this issue before.
Some free advice, Gord, before you make an even bigger ass of yourself attempting to lecture folks like jj and fern: Less talkee, more listenee.
JJ, in answer to your question...yes.
CC, thanks for proving my point. I confer on you a PHD in Hyperbole.
It's actually rather simple, Gordie.
Neither Cynic nor JJ want anyone to try to cut through the rhetoric. They like the abortion debate precisely the way it is -- wrought with name-calling and alternating expressions of outrage at the conduct of the "other side".
They can't even tolerate the notion of criticizing equally the violence perpetrated by people on both sides of this issue. Their repeated attempts to make excuses for the assault perpetraded on one Ed Snell, for example, really only demonstrates how hypocritical and regressive (read: not progressive) these people are. Every bit as bad as an anti-abortion advocate who condones violence against abortion clinic doctors.
(By the way, Cynic -- if he even bothers to attempt to continue this conversation -- is about to lie to you now. I suggest you read this before he does. There's no truth like preemptive truth.)
Gordie, I think I can speak for a lot of people -- not nearly enough, but for some -- when I say "welcome to the rational debate over abortion".
And while those who rather desperately don't want that rational debate to happen may want to discourage you, I would do the opposite -- I would encourage you to continue.
No worries Patrick, bullies don't scare me. I've checked out the site some of the commentators originate from and its nothing but juvenile banter laced with profanity...nothing to worry about.
When some become convinced that they've attained the pinnacle of correctness they react angrily when someone dares challenge their opinions.
Extreme left or extreme right, they're both differnt shades of facism in my book.
I can't help but agree with you, Gordie.
Gordie, I would like to speak to the issue of abortion statistics.
In Canada, abortion statistics are far from complete.
And I know that not all late-term abortions are counted.
It has to do with terminology.
In Canada, the word "abortion" covers all termination of pregnancies before 20 weeks.
After 20 weeks, though, the terms become confusing.
Many in the medical system are reluctant to apply the word "abortion" to terminations after 20 weeks. They are called "terminations" or "inductions". In fact, in medical journals, they're typically called TOP's. Nobody wants to admit to aborting a third trimester baby-- it's very emotional.
UNESCO has a medical coding system that member countries are supposed to adopt. This medical coding is for statistical purposes-- in order to make comparisons of countries around the word of various health statistics.
This UNESCO coding considers that any fetus born after 20 weeks (or above 500g) is considered a stilborn baby *regardless* of the kind of death he suffered.
So late-term abortions in Canada are classified as "stillbirths".
The various provinces have different definitions of stillbirth. Some only count babies after 20 weeks. In some it must be 20 weeks AND weighing over 500 g and some just require that the baby weigh 500 grams.
Long story short, the information collected from providers is incomplete. The Canadian Institute for Health Information gathers this information from health ministry databases. These "stillborns" don't necssarily make the cut.
Abortion providers/health ministries are also not obligated to provide information about the gestational ages of the fetuses being aborted. As a result, less than half the records received by CIHI have information pertaining to gestational ages.
All this to say that there are probably more late-term abortions in Canada than meets the eye. I don't wish to overstate it-- it's not pandemic-- but 0.4% is probably wrong in reality.
I assume the Canadian women getting late term abortions in the US are counted in the US statistics, not in Canada's. Can someone confirm this? This would have very little impact on the US statistics (where 1.6% of all abortions are late term) but might partially account for our numbers being lower than countries which have laws restricting late-term abortions.
Would you like to see more Canadian women travel to the US for abortions? Unless you can change US laws, any change in Canada will certainly have this effect.
" I assume the Canadian women getting late term abortions in the US are counted in the US statistics, not in Canada's."
No anon, they are counted in Canada because they are paid for by our system. Nice try though.
I am all for rational debate, Gordie. The problem is, it isn't me who is not engaging in it. Suzanne and her ilk moan and whine about late term abortions ("abortion moment's before birth!!") and how horrible they are, yet cannot produce even a single case where one has taken place for reasons other than justifiable medical reasons - the life and health of the mother is at risk or the fetus is deformed to the point it would not survive after birth.
As JJ has stated and you can check out by going to Stats Canada, or reading any number of Grumbacher Institute reports, less than 1 half of 1% of abortions in Canada occur after 24 weeks (the cut off that even Dr. Henry Morgantaler says he will not perform abortions on demand). All of those are done for the aforementioned medical reasons. Grumbacher indicates that the typical profile of a woman seeking an abortion in the US (and that is likely to be similar in Canada) is of a married woman 24-36 years old with at least one child, who chooses not to have another child in order to maintain the quality of life for her family.
In short, based on easily verifiable statistics and facts, one can reasonably conclude that Canada does not need an abortion law.
Do not forget who some of you new friends here are, Gordie. Suzanne is on record as wishing to outlaw all abortions, period. She has no compunction about lying to achieve those ends. She and her "pro-life" compatriots are quite open about their plans to achieve these ends through incremental steps - ban abortion after 24 weeks, then have it dropped to 20, then say 15...all the way to 0.
JJ and I have presented facts to back up our arguments. We have presented sound philosophic arguemnts
con't
Our philosophic arguments include the idea of self-ownership of your body (dating back to Locke) and the current societal precedent of valuing bodily integrity over human life - you cannot be compelled to donate an organ even if it means certain death for another. You cannot be compelled to host an organ or other medical device against your will, even if if means certain death for another. All because we hold that being able to control one's body is paramount, even over the life of another.
We have given alternatives - free choice. If you don't think abortion is right, don't have one. You'd be surprised how many pro-choice people would never themselves have an abortion.
These rational, fact based arguments have been presented over and over. The pro-choice constant litany of lies - last-minute abortions occur, abortions causes breast cancer, abortion causes mental illness etc - have been refuted, over and over. Yet Suzanne and her ilk continue to spread the misinformation.
And that is why there is no debate to be had. While we on the pro-choice side have presented a rational argument, the anti-choice side has responded with lies, misrepresentation, secrecy (just who is in the Parliamentary Prolife Caucus? etc), appeals to emotion based on those lies, and religious dogma.
It is they who are not interested in a debate, they never have. Because they know most rational Canadians would not agree with them.
But lets also look at it this way. Should there even be a debate about whether the state can forcibly take one of your kidneys, or your corneas, or one of your lungs? Would you even enter a debate on such a horrific, monstrous notion?
How is asking women to debate giving up the right to control their bodies any different.
Personal choice. If you don not want to have an abortion, if you think its wrong. Don't have one. If you don't want others to have one, make not having an abortion the more attractive choice. Otherwise, its really none of your business.
Now, does this make me and my comment "nothing but juvenile banter laced with profanity"? Or reasoned debate? Can you understand why there can be no debate with people who hide and lie, rather than debate?
Assuming 200,000 abortions in a year, with 800 being late-term (using ARCC's .4% number), let's assume that only .4% occur for reasons other than mother/fetal health.
Hang on a second. Where did you get that second 0.4%? You got the first one, the percentage of late-term abortions, from ARCC, but where did you get that second 0.4%, the percentage of late-term abortions "for reasons other than mother/fetal health"? I note that you said, "let's assume" -- but why should we?
"I am all for rational debate, Gordie. The problem is, it isn't me who is not engaging in it."
Hmmmmm. I see.
And I suppose you think threatening someone with gun violence for daring to disagree with you on abortion was the "rational" thing to do, Mike?
(You can go right ahead and try to lie about this Mike, but when you tell someone "this is what I'll do to anyone who disagrees with me" then direct them toward a picture of a gun pointed at them, the message is crystal clear. Gordie, I'm just setting the table in terms of the people you're dealing with here.)
"As JJ has stated and you can check out by going to Stats Canada, or reading any number of Grumbacher Institute reports, less than 1 half of 1% of abortions in Canada occur after 24 weeks (the cut off that even Dr. Henry Morgantaler says he will not perform abortions on demand). All of those are done for the aforementioned medical reasons."
I've read your argument toward this end elsewhere, Mike, and it's pure rubbish.
First off, the information offered by the Grumbacher Institute of which you speak doesn't seem to be nearly as accessible as you'd like people to believe.
In fact, when I Googled this -- both with quotations and without -- I came up with three seemingly relevant hits. The problem with this, Mike, is that they were all you talking about this.
I suppose you think we're supposed to take your word for it.
Beyond that, your argument is incredibly thin. It doesn't even qualify as specious. Your argument to date, is that we should assume that no unnecessary abortions are performed after 24 weeks because Dr Henry Morgentaler won't perform them due to ethical reasons. (Morgentaler deserves to be applauded for this.)
The argument is that Morgentaler's view of the ethics of the matter is somehow the minimum for medical doctors, and every other appropriately-trained doctor in Canada either meets Morgentaler's ethical standard or exceeds it, with no exceptions.
There's nothing rational about this argument. All it would take is for one doctor to violate their ethical obligations for your entire argument to be rendered extremely suspect, if not invalid.
We already know that many doctors do violate the minimum ethical standards of their profession. Mike, are we to believe that abortion doctors are universally more likely to adhere to the ethical standard set by Dr Morgentaler? Are we really expected to believe that Dr Morgentaler's ethical standard is the minimal standard?
Faced with an argument like this, no one needs to demonstrate even a single non-medical late-term abortion. The doubt incurred by anyone who bothers to think critically about your argument is sufficient to render it impotent.
"Our philosophic arguments include the idea of self-ownership of your body (dating back to Locke) and the current societal precedent of valuing bodily integrity over human life - you cannot be compelled to donate an organ even if it means certain death for another. You cannot be compelled to host an organ or other medical device against your will, even if if means certain death for another. All because we hold that being able to control one's body is paramount, even over the life of another."
That's a very Brooinuge-esque argument. It fails on one crucial count:
Abortion -- particularly late-term abortion -- is not about one body. It's about two.
The challenge that could be raised here is this: if the mother is entitled to bodily integrity, why should her unborn child not also be entitled to bodily integrity, especially in the late stages of that pregnancy when the child is viable?
You could certainly argue that the law doesn't consider the unborn child to be a human being until it's born. But this is purely a legal definition, not a philosophical or scientific definition, and it isn't as if the law has never been wrong about who to consider persons and whom not to consider persons before.
Now I'm going to divert from this particular argument and give my personal view. My view is that the mother holds responsibility for the bodily integrity of both herself and her unborn child. She also holds the right -- coupled with this responsibility -- to decide how she will proceed at any point of her pregnancy.
Because of this combination of rights and responsibilities, the woman has the right to decide whether or not she'll seek an abortion. She also has the responsibility to make what she deems to be the best decision for everyone involved, including her unborn child -- not merely just for herself.
I have no shortage of confidence in saying that many of the women -- indeed, probably most -- who choose to have an abortion do so because they believe it's legitimately the best choice for both herself and her unborn child. It isn't my place to judge the criteria by which she's made her decision so long as she's sincere. I respect that.
But I have no shortage of saying that some women who choose to have abortions do so merely as retroactive birth control (Joyce Arthur herself is on record as supporting abortion as retroactive birth control). That I cannot respect. The latter of these two propositions strikes me as the frivolous destruction of human life (and if you want to dispute whether or not an unborn child is a form of human life, I invite you to check the DNA).
"We have given alternatives - free choice. If you don't think abortion is right, don't have one. You'd be surprised how many pro-choice people would never themselves have an abortion."
The pro-abortion lobby has also been offered some alternative methods of at least partially dealing with some of the ethical concerns that late-term abortion, in particular, poses.
The pro-abortion lobby -- particularly, in this case, your cohort JJ -- has rejected them.
Let's consider, for example, the proposition that we legally protect the rights of doctors to choose to refuse to perform an abortion they deem to be unethical.
JJ, for one, insists that such a thing is unnecessary.
Yet when Robert McClelland suggested that abortion "rights" be entrenched in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, JJ jumped all over that idea.
The problem with these two positions?
If the right to an abortion were entrenched in the Charter, women who were refused abortions -- such as the case with Henry Morgentaler's admirable stance on late-term abortions -- could litigate against those doctors, either in civil court or before a human rights commission.
Morgentaler himself could not refuse to perform an abortion he judged to be unethical without being subject to legal reprisal.
Mike, what part of denying any need for legal protection of a doctor's right to choose even as the pro-abortion lobby pushes an agenda that would not only make such protection necessary, but unattainable do you think is logically consistent?
But in the end, Mike, your argument needs to be subjected to the same scrutiny as Chet here wants to subject Suzanne's argument to.
You invite us to assume a great many things.
Why should we assume your arguments any more than we assume Suzanne's?
I'll have more time to read through all the comments later this evening. But one quick point I wish to make regarding restricting access to later term abortions where there is no evidence of health risks to the mother or unborn child.
Some seem to think that placing restrictions on abortions...when the fetus is so far developed even Henry Morgentaler finds them unethical..
Some think any type of restriction (no matter how reasonable) somehow would imperil a woman's access to abortion procedures. I don't.
My whole point is that we can achieve a middle ground...that those who would seek to dictate either ZERO abortions or those who advocate no laws and total access...that neither represent the majority view....they're merely the most active in the on-going debate.
That's usually the case with a polarized issue, the fanatics at either end of the spectrum scream insults at one another and the majority of people see their behaviour and say, "I'm not going anywhere near this".
"We're talking about restricting abortion in 3 or 4 cases out of every 200,000."
why stop there?
KEvron
"My whole point is that we can achieve a middle ground"
why concede middle ground?
KEvron
"In Canada, abortion statistics are far from complete."
how far must canada go to complete them?
KEvron
"but 0.4% is probably wrong in reality."
probably less, eh?
probably KEvron
Hi Gordie, I understand your wish to find middle ground on this. I do. I myself find abortion repugnant.
As I see it, you're asking if the government should restrict elective abortions after 24 weeks, because at that point, you (and me, and others) see that as a viable baby. Fair enough question to ask, if you're actually asking, and not trying to push that agenda.
I've thought about it, and I have to say "no". No, the government should not get involved. There are several reasons for this:
1) If the government restricts these abortions, EVERY late term abortion will have to be approved before it can take place. That will endanger women who are having them for health emergencies.
2) Having to approve every LTA also will mean that some bureaucrat with a forced-birth bug up his ass or a total lack of comprehension of the medical emergency might refuse to allow a medically necessary abortion, causing delays. Again, this endangers women.
3) Doctors do not like to perform late term abortions. Even Dr. Morgentaler refuses to do them after 24 weeks. Should a woman come to a doctor with the need for one because of denial or an abusive relationship, and the doctor agrees to do it, it seems to me that that doctor would have a very very good reason for it. Else, s/he'd be risking his or her license.
4) Forcing women to continue pregnancy when they don't want to is abusive. I know, the argument is that the abuse of this woman is okay when it means that the fetus will live to become a baby, but I have to disagree. Here's why: If I need a kidney transplant, I do not have the right to demand my mother give me one. I am already a viable adult. A fetus should not have *more* rights than I have. If my daughter needed a blood transfusion, and I was the only one with compatible blood, I could not be legally compelled to give it to her. It is my body. Of course, I would give it to her. But forcing me to by law would be a serious violation of my bodily rights.
5) Denying elective LTAs would lead to DIY abortions, which would DEFINITELY raise maternal death rates. Instead of one death, you'd have two. That is not acceptable to me, as someone who is pro-life.
I am pro-choice because I am pro-life. To legislate LTAs would simply do much more harm than good. I appreciate your concern for the fetus, I feel it too. But I feel that the lives of hundreds of women trump the lives of two or three elective LTAs.
"If the government restricts these abortions, EVERY late term abortion will have to be approved before it can take place. That will endanger women who are having them for health emergencies."
Doctors are also granted dispensations for emergency situations. When a patient's life is in imminent peril all that is necessary is the consent of either the patient or of a family member.
"Having to approve every LTA also will mean that some bureaucrat with a forced-birth bug up his ass or a total lack of comprehension of the medical emergency might refuse to allow a medically necessary abortion, causing delays. Again, this endangers women."
Once again, no. All that would be necessary would be a simple "yes or no" from a hospital administrator. And that would only be under ideal circumstances.
"Doctors do not like to perform late term abortions. Even Dr. Morgentaler refuses to do them after 24 weeks. Should a woman come to a doctor with the need for one because of denial or an abusive relationship, and the doctor agrees to do it, it seems to me that that doctor would have a very very good reason for it. Else, s/he'd be risking his or her license."
Not really. The ethical imperative that dissuades some doctors from late-term abortions -- "do no harm" -- can be argued around by other doctors.
I doubt that any medical association in the country would try to strip a doctor of their license for performing an abortion, late-term, unnecessary, or otherwise.
The pro-abortion lobby would never stand for it.
"Forcing women to continue pregnancy when they don't want to is abusive. I know, the argument is that the abuse of this woman is okay when it means that the fetus will live to become a baby, but I have to disagree. Here's why: If I need a kidney transplant, I do not have the right to demand my mother give me one. I am already a viable adult. A fetus should not have *more* rights than I have. If my daughter needed a blood transfusion, and I was the only one with compatible blood, I could not be legally compelled to give it to her. It is my body. Of course, I would give it to her. But forcing me to by law would be a serious violation of my bodily rights."
The pro-abortion lobby really needs to wake up to the fact that, at some point, an unborn child is more than simply a fetus -- or as the pro-abortion lobby likes to refer to it, a "clump of cells". At some point, that fetus is an unborn human being.
Late-term abortion is one particular situation in which this unequivocably it not about one body, it's about two.
Suffice to say, pregnancy, like many things in life, has a point of no return. At a certain point -- particularly, after a brain wave is present -- that is another human being, and the decision to end that life should not be allowed to be taken frivolously.
this lta argument is a charade; the anti-choice crowd does not intend to stop at that point. lta legislation is demonstrably unneccesary, so why seek it? because late term limits and fetus protection bills are their disingenuous way of laying a foundation for further debate and legislation. fight it tooth and nail, canadians.
and here's a shout out to twatrick: what up, jennifer? we missed your response to the deficit crisis. don't be a stranger.
KEvron
"At a certain point -- particularly, after a brain wave is present -- that is another human being, and the decision to end that life should not be allowed to be taken frivolously."
What a despicable thing to say. Frivolously? Do you even have the faintest idea what you're talking about? It's clear that you don't, and with every pedantic post you make it more obvious.
In the past, I've answered your questions (sometimes over & over) and generally cut you far more slack than almost anyone else in the progosphere would, but even my patience has limits. You're an asshole and a troll.
Really? The idea that a decision to end human life shouldn't be taken frivolously offends you?
This coming from someone who denies the need to protect a doctor's right to refuse to perform an unethical abortion, and yet pushes an agenda that would render that protection both necessary and unattainable?
Comeing from you, I take that as a badge of honour.
And, yeah, I got you.
Patrick...
I thought you made some brilliant points, but I did cringe at your choice of the word "frivously".
I would never for a second dispute that in almost all cases of late-term abortion...that the women involved did not have to go through a gut wrenching decision making process.
I mentioned in a comment a while back that I have personal experience with this issue. A girlfriend of mine in University, when I was 20. The abortion was performed in the first trimester...and there was a young girl there (17/18 yrs old) who was having her 3rd procedure. It struck me that she was using it as a form of birth control. This was back in the days of the Morgentaler clinic or Harbour St in Toronto (Harbour st, rd, ave...I forget).
But even as distateful as the notion is of using abortion as a form of birth control, I would never support efforts to limit access in the first trimester.
But in cases where the fetus has developed to such a degree that even Dr. Morgentaler himself calls it a baby...then yes I would, excepting of course instances of grave medical danger to mother and/or child.
Which would place us in agreement, Gordon.
The point is that at some point there needs to be damn good reason for an abortion, especially late in term.
"Cold feet", for an example, can't readily be excused as a decision of necessity.
To me, there's a big problem with the decision to have an abortion being taken lightly at any stage of a pregnancy. This is something that I'm worried that the pro-abortion lobby is actively promoting, when they insist that a fetus is nothing more than "a clump of cells", or when Joyce Aurthur advocates abortion as a form of retroactive birth control.
The latter attitude in particular, undermines the mutual responsibility of sexually active women and men to practice birth control. Science has given us enough methods of birth control that unplanned pregnancies should be exceedingly rare if either individual involved -- but preferably both -- act responsibly.
I'm certainly not adverse to admitting that people make mistakes. Furthermore, as I've said time and time again, legal and safe abortion is infinitely preferable to back alley or DIY abortions.
The point I'm making here is that the decision to have an abortion should be a difficult one to make at any stage of a pregnancy. Yet the most extreme elements of the pro-abortion lobby -- the elements for which JJ flies her particular flag -- have gone out of their way to push a narrative that would make this deicison much easier to make.
I don't think society is, in the slighest bit, remiss in telling a woman in the final trimester of her pregnancy "sorry, but it's too late for that."
I don't think society is, in the slighest bit, remiss in telling a woman in the final trimester of her pregnancy "sorry, but it's too late for that."
Society *does* say that! It is virtually impossible to find a doctor who will do a third trimester abortion. This is the point we're all making here. It doesn't happen.
And yet late-term abortions do happen, Luna.
But seeing as how Canadian statistics really don't seem to be very accurate in their recording of late-term abortions, let's take a look at a country where records regarding late-term abortions are more accurate.
Consider the case of Britain where late-term abortions have been rising, and a vast majority are for "lifestyle reasons".
Is there something specific about Canadian doctors that you believe makes them morally or ethically superior to British doctors, and less likely to proceed with these abortions?
I'll also remind you that Britain is a country with a limit after which abortions may not be obtained without medical cause. In Britain, that limit is 24 weeks. This particular study dealt with women seeking abortions between 20-24 weeks.
Now, interestingly enough, British doctors have pointed toward two things to explain this:
First off, poor sex education in British schools -- and whether the anti-abortion lobby likes it or not, sex education and birth control are important tools in reducing abortions.
The other thing they blame is ambivalence toward the fetus as human life. "Women get the idea it's a trivial matter and as a result they are much more cavalier about presenting to their GP late."
Which brings me back to the absurdity of JJ's complaint here. Clearly, the ambivalence toward human life promoted by the most extreme elements of the pro-abortion lobby (including herself) is a factor in all of this.
No wonder she's so offended by the notion that frivolous late-term abortions (it should be mentioned at this point that this is an extreme minority of abortions) should be disallowed.
Then again, there is always the compromise option. A great many people who are concerned about abortion (even if not necessarily outright opponents of it) would be amicable to the idea of legally protecting a doctor's right to refuse to perform an abortion they deem to be unethical.
What would you say to that, Luna?
"This particular study dealt with women seeking abortions between 20-24 weeks."
i thought the concession was 24 months?! gordie, you wanna straighten out this fetishist?
"britain" and "20-24 mos." way to move them goal posts, jenny.
KEvron
The problem is, it isn't me who is not engaging in it. Suzanne and her ilk moan and whine about late term abortions ("abortion moment's before birth!!") and how horrible they are, yet cannot produce even a single case where one has taken place for reasons other than justifiable medical reasons - the life and health of the mother is at risk or the fetus is deformed to the point it would not survive after birth.
Sure I have. I've mentioned them many times. Margaret Somerville wrote me an email in which she said that she was consulted for an abortion for a cleft palate, and a "social" abortion in the third trimester-- 32 weeks.
Go ahead google her and email her. I did. She'll give you the facts. She has a PhD in medicine and bioethics. She would know.
Even if the baby would not survive the abortion, why kill him in the womb? Why not just deliver him and offer him a peaceful death through palliative care? Why stick a needle in his heart and provoke a heart attack with potassium chloride?
Perfectly healthy fetuses do get aborted past 20 weeks for "social reasons". Even the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada says so.
Mike, I have seen you make numerous misstatements of fact on the abortion issue. If you want to go toe to toe on abortion facts, bring it on. It's not like I don't research this on a constant basis.
Abortion is part of the decay inflicted by the gods in the latter half of the 20th century as we approach the Apocalypse::::
- Free sex
- Explosion in gay sex
- Abortion
- Legalized greed/immorality
- The internet. Whereas TV was a phenominally destructive new temptation on the landscape it doesn't hold a candle to the internet. Some people will waste their whole lives.
So many people don't care about global warming. They don't care about the Federal deficit/debt (outside of partisanship) and they don't care earning $400k for an $80,000/year job will eventually bankrupt the country. They have awarded themselves $400k pay and retirement packages, loading up their friends on the payroll during the boom 90s through the real estate bust while all services which the program were intended to fund now get cut to pay for it.
These people are often common public university labor. Not Ivy League, not private university.
This labor isn't good enough to command the salaries they are earning. And they understood this when they applied to the public university they settled on.
You can't expect a top-tier salary with a second-rate education.
They think they are going sometime during/at the end of this life, and disregard the poor souls who are left behind.
These are the people who will be here in the United States when bankruptcy is declared and society deteriorates into chaos. And they will deserve the anarchy which ensues.
Continuing the push for privatization, reinforced and supported recently with enormous public sector salaries and retirement packages.
Once achieved the gods will utilize the corruptive predisposition of the private sector economy, as seen with the sub-prime/bailout fiasco, to initiate economic catastrophy and initiate the bankruptcy proceedings of the United States.
Whether the cure for cancer/diseases or the permanant resolution of economic misery, before the gods remove these motivations to pray we will experience an inordinate deluge of each element, with economic misery being perhaps the dissallusion of the united States with bankruptcy.
The gods used the Italians to ruin life in the 20th century.
The gods used the Italians to ruin life in A.D. with The Church.
The Church controlled Western Civilization. As the largest land owner in Europe they controlled the monarchies. They were responsbile for slavery, revenge for African invasion and rape of Italy. They created religious discontent, ultimately leading to the disfavored dumping ground known as the United States.
And each generation of these Italians were sold on "earning", only to be reincarnated as a lesser life form subsequently, punishment for their evil.
"The West Bank, where the end of the world will begin." With xtianity.
A good example of societal decay and how the gods manage their culpability is birth defects. In the past the gods occassionally punished people by divinely creating birth defects in the womb. Now, with the advent of biotechnology, they tempt the mother with "earning" and compell her to take a substance in utero which deforms the fetus, dispelling the gods of blame and future obligation to the victim. Incidentally, they use liberal policies to pay for these individuals, ensuring a lifetime wasted, for they have no hope for progress. Too often in the past they were mercifully killed immediately and brought back without this handicap, allowing them opportunity to resume their journey of ascention into heaven.
The gods are washing their hands of culpability. The gods are washing their hands of Planet Earth.
You don't want to get involved in the abortion battle. You're not "earning". The gods will use this tool to cast people into Damnation. Nothing will save them. Stop wasting your time on others and work on fixing your own problems. If you don't make enough progress to be granted good parents when reincarnated you will waste your next life too.
Post a Comment