In just under three and a half years I have written or touched on the topic of abortion 21 times. In fact the most often read post on this blog is "Abortion in Canada Legal – Right Up Until Time of Birth".
Well, here goes number 22.
Canada is about to have a parliamentary debate on the topic of...yes, you guessed it..abortion. Forget about Justin Trudeau's victory over Conservative senator Patrick Brazeau. A debate about abortion is bound to be far more combative and nasty than anything that takes place in a boxing ring.
For those who might scream foul at Prime Minister Stephen Harper over a promise that his government would not reopen the debate, take a second. This is an initiative of MP Stephen Woodworth acting as a private member, not of the Harper government. And in point of fact the Conservative member from Kitchener isn't even proposing any new legislation, he merely wants parliament to discuss and potentially study the present law, one which says a child only becomes a human being with rights after it emerges from its mother's womb.
What's truly remarkable about this debate is how woefully ignorant Canadians are with respect to our laws. Just over two years ago a poll was published by Angus Reid with results showing 92% of Canadians were not aware that our nation has no laws on the books whatsoever.
In this Canada stands completely alone among developed nations. France, Germany, Denmark, Sweden...liberal democracies all, and all have laws defining when an abortion can take place, or rather when it cannot. With restrictions typically coming in the 3rd trimester unless there is a threat to maternal health.
The debate is already in full flight on the Internet of course. In the red corner, those who think a woman should have the right to make decisions about her body no matter what stage of pregnancy are in full battle mode.
And in the blue corner the right to lifers, cheering the fact that Canada will finally debate the topic of when or if a fetus/preborn should ever be accorded rights under our laws.
The only polling data I can come across is just over 10 years old, from 2001, but I suspect the numbers haven't changed much. According to a Gallup poll done in December of that year over 60% of Canadians think there should be restrictions on abortion, with 14% of the survey supporting an outright ban. Only 32% believed abortion should be legal in all circumstances, the status quo in other words.
I'm in the majority on this one. I am pro-choice, but not in the third trimester when a fetus is so far developed even Henry Morgentaller himself called them babies. I will grant that the number of late-term abortions that take place (excepting cases of maternal health) are incredibly small, but that's why we have laws. Just because something happens rarely doesn't mean it should necessarily be excluded from any statute.
For those in the 32% minority (based on Gallup's polling numbers) who are angry this debate is even taking place, I'd note that 32% is even less than the Conservative's percentage of the popular vote in any of our recent elections.
Posts
Seed Newsvine
32 comments:
Gordie, if the most recent polling data you can find is over 10 years old, maybe you should find another topic to bloviate about.
Maybe sit down, STFU, and learn something.
Of those tiny numbers of 3rd trimester abortions I'd guess (since you have NO DATA) that the vast majority, if not all of them, are because of fetal death & failure to miscarry, and/or fetal defects so severe it wouldn't survive outside the womb.
0 restrictions is best because any restrictions means a restriction on women's rights. Just look south of the border to see what THAT looks like.
What on earth are you talking about? Do you have any idea why people have late-term abortions? Have you ever spoken to anyone who has? I really hope none of them ever read this offensive drivel.
About what I expected from the voiciferous minority, if there is more current polling data available I'd be happy to see it.
ARCC (I'm sure you know them) on their site talks of cases of teenagers in denial and of women in abusive relationships as being examples of the very small number of LTA's that take place...my sympathy however doesn't extend so far as to killing what Henry Morgentaller himself called a baby, not a fetus.
You don't have to agree with my opinion, that's democracy. The STFU comment however doesn't do much to engender constructive discourse, something democracies should cherish.
Only a facist says...if you don't agree with me, TFB, shut up and sit down, I'm right and you're wrong.
If you think that women are just strolling into the abortion clinic at 39 weeks and say 'I changed my mind! Let's get this party started,' then you're not qualified to write about this. Use your brain and do some research. And maybe listen to some women. These are not your rights to bodily autonomy or freedom from forced childbirth being debated here.
Jane...with respect, I've used my brain and done plenty of research. Just because someone's opinion differs from your own, it doesn't make that opinion any less valid.
I'm not in favour of forced child birth, as are the extreme elements of the Pro-Life anti-abortion camp...but neither am I in favour of affording a child capable of surviving outside the womb no rights whatsoever.
Gordie, you don't know what you're talking about, at all. Fascists don't tell people to shut up -- they just shut them up. Part of a free society is having people tell you when you're talking nonsense.
Which, incidentally, you are. This "argument" -- and I use the term very loosely -- is pathetic. You believe that a fetus in the third trimester is a baby, so there should be laws compelling women to carry it to term?
Okay, I'll argue that way, too. I believe that up until the age of 12, biological humans are still fetuses, albeit ex utero ones. Hence, it should be permissible for their mothers to abort them.
If the latter doesn't work, neither does the former.
Your beliefs about the status of a fetus are irrelevant; only a fascist would try to force them on someone else.
You are also failing to account for the autonomy of the mother, and the necessary violation of that autonomy by creating a restriction on abortion. (Which is Jane's point.)
And the less said about the utterly stupid appeal to "other countries do it!", the better.
The reason that abortion can't be debated is the same reason that evolution can't be debated. One side is right.
Where is your data on these late term abortions then? I'm not talking about your "opinion," as offensive as it is to me. I'm talking about your writing and the assumptions you make. Do you know why people have late term abortions? Why do you feel this private decision on a medical procedure that will never be performed on you is any of your damn business?
And let's be clear - if you restrict abortion rights, you are advocating forced birth. There is no simpler way to put it.
Evolution can certainly be debated ADHR, in fact pretty much anything can be debated. Evolutional theory is after all just that, a theory. I know you want to intimidate me and anyone else who doesn't agree with you...but at least in my case...it won't work.
You like the rights you have now and don't want to seem them infringed upon, I get that. Its an either or argument and in your world view, a woman's right to self determination over her body is sacrosanct (sp?)...I get that too.
A woman has rights, a 3rd trimester fetus has none. If the third trimester fetus is given legal standing, you lose some of your autonomy and rights...
Ad nauseum, I get it.
I don't agree...and I will express my opinion, no matter how foul and obnoxious the verbal insults on this blog get.
Jane, go read ARCC pdf on the subject. Wasn't it you who told me to do some research?
This is YOUR post and YOUR position we're discussing. It's up to you to back it up (or not, as apparently you can't).
Okay...seeing as you haven't done the research yourself, (your writing seemed to indicated you'd done some) I'll give you some stuff to go over:
http://www.kdheks.gov/hci/abortion_sum/08itop1.pdf
From Kansas where Canadian women are sometimes sent for abortion procedures...I'm sure you knew that, well not 100% sure.
Anyway go to page 10 and you can read of the 188 LTA's performed on 'out of state' residents.
Now, the 188 are said to be because the patient..."would suffer substantial and irreversible
impairment of a major bodily function if she were
forced to continue the pregnancy"...
Okay...sounds fair right. In my opinion I don't think a woman should be forced to carry a fetus to term if her life is at risk.
But here's the rub....go here:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2009/06/kansas-statistics-on-late-term.html
To read an interview with the Gov. of Kansas, and about how many LTA's are performed not because of an impairment to physical health, but to her mental health.
I'm with US President Obama on this one (do you need that link as well) in saying I don't believe mental health should be a consideration when it comes to LTA, at some point the fetus which Morgentaller himself called a baby has rights.
Again...if you have more recent polling data I'd love to see it, but I suspect I'm in the majority on this one, but you are welcome to disagree.
I should have realized that interview about LTA is from a pro-life blog, and as such you might dismiss it out of hand.
Here's the link for ARCC:
http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/postionpapers/22-Late-term-Abortions.PDF
There it says:
"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". (Emphasis mine)
If ARCC is suggesting abortions take place for these reasons, I have no reason to doubt them. And I don't think that a viable fetus (what HM again calls a baby) should have its life ended because his/her mother was in denial.
I'll look for more comments tomorrow, I'm sure the links and reading I provided will take awhile, unless you just want to dimiss them out of hand because they don't support your point of view.
"I will grant that the number of late-term abortions that take place (excepting cases of maternal health) are incredibly small, but that's why we have laws."
"That's why we have laws". What's why we have laws? When you yourself concede that even without a law, the number of late term abortions is miniscule, and only for serious health issues. Additionally, even with our wild & crazy "OMG NO LAW!!!", the abortion rate falls every year.
The medical establishment obviously has the situation well in hand. A "law" would only codify the status quo, and implementing one would serve no purpose other than to waste a lot of time and taxpayers' money.
Oh yeah, and give anti-choicers a foot in the door to further restrictions. But you're male so you don't have to worry about that, do you now?
On behalf of Canadian women, I thank you for your "support" in this latest attack on our rights.
By the way, Kansas hasn't been the destination of choice for late term procedures since May 31, 2009, when "pro-lifers" murdered the doctor who provided that service.
That's who you're aligning yourself with. Something to think about.
JJ, fwiw...I'm not "aligning" myself with anyone, I'm of the group that doesn't believe in a black and white, right versus wrong approach to this debate. If anything I think it would be fair to say that I am most aligned with the views of Dr. Henry Morgentaller and US president Obama on this issue.
I realize however that for many it is in fact an either or argument, but I don't share that opinion.
"Evolutional theory is after all just that, a theory."
Mr. Gord, that's a very unfortunate choice of words. A scientific Theory is not the same thing as a popular parlance 'theory'.
This fallacy of argumentation has been egregiously advanced as some kind of intellectual 'gotcha' by creationists for years and been patiently and teeth-grindingly rebutted numerous times by leading experts who actually do Science as a career. 30 seconds of Google is all it takes to find this.
Please don't use 'just a theory' as a defense for finding an equally fallacious 'debate' on the rights of women to control their own bodies pleasing to you.
It doesn't bolster your 'rational' high ground, it *does* align your arguments with the same theocratic community that considers both the concept of evolution and the civil rights of women as against 'god'.
Niles...I don't disparage another's point of view just because I disagree with it. I am not a creationist, I don't believe man walked with dinosaurs and regard much of the Bible as folklore and myth.
With that being said, holding a particular belief in common with so the so called 'theorcratic community' does not have to entail agreeing with them on all points, or even most.
For the most ardent members of the anti-choice/pro-life camp, abortion should NEVER be allowed. I'm not an extremist on this issue, I don't believe in zero protection for the unborn, but I equally don't agree with zero rights for women vis a vis decision making over reproductive choices.
Extremists are rarely happy because in most cases our political process seeks out middle ground. And unless someone can show my otherwise all the polling data I've seen suggest the majority of Canadians would like to see some restrictions placed on abortion...such as in cases of late-term or gender selection.
Just because my viewpoint is pretty much in line with the majority doesn't make my opinion more or less valid than those contrary. A few say always a few others say never...you don't have to agree, that's why in a free and democratic society we're allowed to express our views...even though there are always some regrettable individuals who will try to shout down those who don't agree with them.
In May of last year, only 34% of Canadians (fewer than elected Harper) wanted the debate reopened:
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=4790
Gosh, that research took me--what?--ten seconds on Google?
Thanks for the link Dawg, I do recall that poll and thinking at the time how curious it was that nearly half of Canadians want things 'left as they are' while another poll by Angus Reid showed 92% of Canadians don't even know 'how things are'.
The devil, as they say, is always in the details.
Its pretty much 50/50 I guess, with about half of Canadians supporting a discussion or not caring one way or another and the other half opposed.
At least this debate might help to inform the over 90% of Canadians who aren't aware that Canada is the only developed nation in the world with no laws whatsover.
In my books that's a healthy discussion, no matter what your point of view.
"I realize however that for many it is in fact an either or argument, but I don't share that opinion."
For every woman in Canada it's an either/or arguement. I either have full bodily autonomy and am a full citizen or I am not. That you are a man with all the privilege that entails, you get to have your opinion and share it and disagree and see all the supposed shades of grey because ultimately Motion 312 and the potential path it opens doesn't apply to you. Lucky you, Gordie. Lucky you.
Jenin, I get your point, honestly.
I know those who view all life from conception onward as being 'sacred'...whatever the hell that means. And I know they're looking for any wedge they can find.
In the extremist Pro-Life camp there are those who will never give up until all abortion procedures are banned, even in cases of rape and incest.
I honestly hope they all die with their dream of a total ban unfullfilled...did I spell that right?
Here's where I differ. Take a look at any number of human rights issues, Kony 2012, South Africa before the banning of apartheid...there are plenty to choose from.
We all get to have our opinions and can see things in shades of gray even though these issues don't directly apply to us.
Fern Hill conceded on her blog that a fetus is a human, but stipulated that even as such its rights are inferior to that of the woman carrying it regardless of the stage of pregnancy. In other words, a pre-born should have no rights whatsover and Canada is right in being the only country in the developed world to have no laws protected an unborn child at any stage.
Canadians have rights, but many of those rights have limitations. The most obvious example is the old saw about having free speech but not the right to scream fire because doing so impacts the rights of others.
Can a woman have autonomy over her body and the right to an abortion...but can that right also have limits?
That's what parliament is going to discuss, and I think that's a healthy situation. The debate might lead to the conclusion that the status quo is the best way to go.
We shall see.
Well no, it's not "50/50." It's 34%.
The devil is in the details, all right, but unlike you I follow them up. Here's the link to that Angus Reid poll:
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/43161/most-canadians-unaware-of-lack-of-restrictions-on-abortions/
Note that, whatever Canadians believe the law to be, 48% of respondents said that abortion should not be restricted and only 42% supported access with some restrictions. The latter is general enough that it more than likely includes medical restrictions presently in operation.
The angus poll I cited in an earlier post had the number at 92% who weren't aware that Canada has no laws, your link pegs the number at 79%...in either case an overwhelming number of Canucks don't know the current situation.
And it is basically 50/50 on the Ipsos poll you cited, 46% say leave things as they are with the other half saying either re-open it or 'I don't care'...so in other words half of Canadians are cool with re-opening the debate and the other half aren't...give or take a couple % points.
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=4790
That's the link you posted, thanks again.
"I am most aligned with the views of Dr. Henry Morgentaller"
Oh please.
Although Dr.Morgentaler didn't perform late-term abortions himself (and there are any number of reasons as well as "ethics": it's a much more complicated, time-consuming procedure, riskier for the patient, etc), he felt that it was a service that should be available to women, unregulated.
Hardly your view of things, is it now.
Gordie, you're entitled to your opinion, and any other time, I wouldn't care. But when women are facing an overt attack on our rights in just 3 weeks, it might not be the best time for public naval gazing about your inner conflicts with regard to abortion. I don't expect everyone to line up in lockstep and get onside, but I do expect everyone to at least avoid supporting our attackers. Is that too much to ask?
Gord,
How many later term abortions are done in Canada every year. Where are they done? Why? When you have the answers to these questions, you can speak - with opinion based on knowledge.
It's such garbage that you're repeatedly invoking Henry Morgentaler's name to support your privileged, lazy little intellectual exercise here.
"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."
When you are talking about giving those fetuses more rights than the abused women and very young teenagers, you are talking about forcing abused women and very young teenagers to give birth against their will. Do you get it yet? Forcing abused women and very young teenagers to give birth against their will. Potentially giving birth to the children of their abusers and whoever impregnates very young teenagers (I'm sure it's all very above-board and consensual most of the time!). Do you get why people are getting angry you're pontificating about this when this will never be something you're forced to do?
If you're at all progressive and you want to be an ally to women, now would be a good time to take a step back and listen.
Well...like it or not this is something that is going to be discussed in Canada's parliament. And horror of horrors, not everyone is going to agree with your 'absolutely right' view on the issue.
Maybe we should outlaw the expression of opinion that says a child should have some rights before he/she emerges from the womb? Or maybe you could employ the tactics of those you oppose on the other polar extreme.
FWIW the anger and venom you exhibit makes you appear every bit as fanatical and extremist as the likes of Pro-Life zealots.
I know you won't agree, because of course...your's is the only right view and anyone who disagrees either hates women or they're horribly misinformed...or they're just stupid.
Just be honest and remove the "progressive" label because it's clear you're not. Progressive men act like allies.
A good replacement for "progressive" would be "forced birth advocate."
Jane, a serious question.
Would you limit a person's right to scream fire in a crammed theatre?
If you answer yes, well...I won't agree, but at least I will respect your consistency in considering all rights as being absolute.
"Forced birth advocate" is a more than a bit over the top given that I'm 100% in favour of unfettered access to abortion in the early stages of pregnancy, in favour of the morning after pill.
The only limitation I would support would be in cases of late term viable pregnancies with a provision that any such limitation would never preclude a woman from having access in cases where her life is at risk.
Sorry for trying to be reasonable and to elevate the tone a bit...go back to calling me names if you prefer, I have a thick skin.
You're not being reasonable or elevating the tone, so you can stop patting yourself on the back right about now.
I suggest you go stand in front of a mirror and say to yourself "I believe in forcing abused women and very young teenagers to give birth against their will."
It's probably not worth saying it again, but being progressive involves being an ally to women. Step back and listen and stop trying to tell us what to do with out bodies or lives.
Jane, I have no issue at all with a teen or an abused woman terminating a pregnacy. Obviously for the sake of the embryo/fetus, and the pregnant woman herself...the sooner the better.
Pro-Choice? Absolutely, so long as that choice is excercised before the fetus is so far developed even Henry Morgentaler himself refers to the fetus as a baby.
You can call extending basic human rights to a child so far developed it can survive outside the womb as not progressive because it places limitations on a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy at any stage if you wish...in a free and democratic society we're all entitled to our opinions and the right to express them.
We disagree, I know you won't change your mind and I highly doubt mine will either.
Post a Comment