With parliament preparing to discuss Canada's position on abortion I wrote about the topic this past Monday, daring to express the opinion that I am not opposed to extending some rights to viable late term fetuses or pre-born babies, excepting cases where there's a threat to maternal health.
I've waded into this debate before and wasn't surprised at the reaction: the anger, the name calling and the sheer venom and insults hurled at me It started with a suggestion that I 'sit down and shut the f*** up'. I'm apparently woefully uninformed, ignorant, and a woman hater...and I'm also a Bible thumping creationist apparently, because I view the evolutionary theory to which I ascribe as a theory. For some labeling something as a "scientific" theory gives it enough credence that is should be automatically accepted as fact. Thankfully real scientists don't operate this way...but I digress.
This is the way it is with polarizing issues. Extremists engaged in any debate will use any and all rhetoric at their disposal to diminish the arguments of those who don't share their 'absolutely' right point of view.
I'll be double checking all my spelling and grammar after writing this, because if I were to slip up and spell abortion as aboution, well some bright bulb would likely start screaming...HE CAN'T EVEN SPELL THE WORD, OBVIOUSLY THIS GUY AND HIS VIEWS ARE MORONIC!!!
Again, that's how polarizing issues and the extreme elements engaged in debate often operate.
Its all about what I'll call 'absolutism'.
For Pro-Life extremists, the rights of the fetus from conception onward should be absolute. For extremists in the Pro-Choice camp, it is the right of a woman to security of the person and reproductive choice that is absolute.
You can't discuss or even debate an issue with an extremist, it is utterly pointless. If you disagree with them, well you're obviously an idiot because their view is absolutely right and any deviation from their line of thinking is absolutely wrong.
No wonder almost half of Canadians (Poll results here, thanks Dawg) believe this debate shouldn't be taking place. And the extreme element of the Pro-Choice lobby concurs, of that I am certain.
Why would Pro-Choice advocates want debate when they've achieved total victory? As things now stand a woman has complete and absolute security of her person with respect to reproductive choice. She can exercise that right legally even if it means terminating a fully developed fetus or pre-born baby, because the pre-born child has zero rights and no standing in law.
There is perhaps a justification for wanting to squelch any and all debate, and that justification comes from looking at the other extreme. There are some in this country who advocate taking away all options when it comes to reproductive choice. For extremist Pro-Lifers a woman should have no right to an abortion, ever.
And so it seems Canada has been forced into a corner where we must choose one extreme or the other. The complete right to an abortion, even up to the time before birth, with a pre-born child having zero rights. Or a pregnant woman having no choice whatsoever, with a fetus from conception onward having precedence when it comes to security of the 'person'.
But does Canada have to pick one extreme the other? Maybe we do. The coming debate in our House of Commons may help answer that question.
Posts
Seed Newsvine
9 comments:
For extremists in the Pro-Choice camp, it is the right of a woman to security of the person and reproductive choice that is absolute.
Just to clarify: do you not think that women have the right to security of the person? Does pregnancy abridge a woman's right to security of the person? If so, can you appreciate why some (many) women may take exception to such a position?
People who think Gordie has his head up his ass should consider signing this petition.
Why would Pro-Life advocates want debate when they've achieved total victory? As things now stand a woman has complete and absolute security of her person with respect to reproductive choice.
I think you mean ProChoice at the top of that paragraph.
How does limiting abortion violate security of the person?
There is a simple answer. First there is enough birth control around that abortion should not be a form of birth control....I think that is fair. Having said that, what if a woman becomes pregnant while taking birth control and doesn't have the means of looking after that child? And what if women who don't have enough money to purchase birth control and some man decides to force himself upon her and she becomes pregnant..what about that? And what about a woman who doesn't want to have a mal-formed child due to having to take drugs for an ongoing malady and again NOT having the means of looking after it? The simple answer....? leave these children with MP's who want to reverse what women have fought for and already won...many years ago....they have the money to look after them. We could also leave these children with Reverends too and also give them to the Vatican.
Or set up a state program to deal with such children.
In answer to anon's question...
Just to clarify: do you not think that women have the right to security of the person?
Yes, I do think women have the right to security of the person. However, as with other rights I do believe it is fair and reasonable to place limitations on those rights.
We all have the right to freedom of speech, (to cite the most often used example of reasonable limits on rights) but we don't have the right to scream fire in a crowded theatre for the obvious reason that unlimited excercise of a right can infringe on the rights of others.
And this is where things get contentious.
In my opinion I don't think it unreasonable to extend some rights to a late term fetus/baby, one so far developed that he/she is capable of surviving outside of the womb.
Thanks to those of you posting in a mature and respectful manner, to those who insist on bullying invectives, ahhh well...I don't censor comments, free speech and the license to express one's opinions free of harrassment is one of the halmarks of a truly civilized society.
Revpaperboy...thanks for pointing out my error, i'll read it over and correct it.
limitations, say, like banning abortions after 20 weeks? This is why we who value reproductive freedom get a little hot under the collar when mansplainers tell us that it's reasonable to limit our freedoms or hold not-so-innocent debates on our fundamental rights: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lynn-m-paltrow/personhood-measures-in-di_b_1396795.html
In my opinion I don't think it unreasonable to extend some rights to a late term fetus/baby, one so far developed that he/she is capable of surviving outside of the womb.
So, you do think that pregnancy abridges a woman's right to security of the person. In effect, because women can become pregnant, they should simply accept that, at some point, they will be stripped of the right to make decisions about their own health and welfare. Again, I ask, can you appreciate why women would take exception to such a position?
Post a Comment