When is a human being a human being, and who exactly is progressive?
These are two questions being raised in the wake of Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth's motion to have Canada's parliament establish a committee to study the question of when a human being is actually a human being.
As things currently stand, in terms of legal status, that point is after a child is no longer in the womb. With that legal definition our current lack of any laws with respect to abortion is perfectly justified and acceptable. Because the fetus/child has no rights, at any point prior to birth, a woman's right to security of the person is paramount at any stage of pregnancy, because the fetus isn't legally a person.
You can watch the MP being interviewed in a media scrum here:
In the interview he brings up some points which some might rather not discuss. Two of them are African slaves and women prior to being granted the vote. In the case of slavery, Africans had no legal rights in the U.S. prior to the 1860s because legally they weren't persons, they were property. Women until the middle part of the twentieth century were not allowed any say in the electing of government members in this country.
Fortunately society 'progressed'...although slave owners and some men probably didn't think so at the time. In the case of slave owners, they lost rights over those that were once considered their property, and men saw the weight of their vote diluted. I would argue that society overall progressed but the rights of certain groups did actually regress, and justifiably so.
The MP is questioned about the evidence this committee would hear. That evidence he says would be of the medical/scientific variety and would include such things as determining at what point brain waves are present or at which point a fetus develops an independent blood type.
Does this really matter? Of course it does.
If parliament were to reach a determination that a fetus is a human being at any point prior to birth, then the rights of the fetus or pre-born child could be seen as in conflict with the rights of women to terminate a pregnancy at any point. In other words women would have less choice.
This will come as news to the majority of Canadians who aren't aware that Canada has no laws concerning abortion whatsoever. Angus Reid conducted a poll back in 2009 which found 92% of Canadians were not aware that abortion in Canada is legal during all nine months of pregnancy. Another poll (this one on-line) also by Angus pegged the number of Canadians aware of the status-quo at just 21%. That would make it 79% who don't know the current legal situation. But whether the percentage is 92 or 79 or somewhere in between, that's still an overwhelming majority who are ignorant of the facts.
Just my personal opinion here, but I think democracy works best when citizens are informed and not ignorant. Which brings me to the progressive pissing contest going on.
This blog belongs to a web site called Progressive Bloggers, and some members are furious at Canadian Soapbox's inclusion because of my willingness to debate and publish content on this subject. Worse still is my willingness to consider that perhaps a late term fetus should maybe have some legal standing.
They want no discussion on this issue because discussion has the very real possibility of bringing limitations on a woman's right to choose, and it seems their expressed opinion is that any extension of human rights to a pre-born is regressive not progressive.
My view is ultimately rooted in public discussion and reasonable debate. I don't have any issue with a proposal for elected officials to hear evidence about when human life starts. That's democracy, and it will allow for informed opinion. Please take note of the word opinion.
If it then leads to an attempt to re-criminalize abortion I will inform myself and reach an opinion based on the facts presented. If Canada were to adopt laws similar to that of say Sweden, I wouldn't be averse.
Here are links to the polling data I cited:
Posts
Seed Newsvine
10 comments:
It seems this "pissing contest" is lost on you. To women, this isn't some blogging game to be trivialized with condescension, implying people who disagree with you are not informed but are ignorant. One doesn't have to read your post to know the contents just from your trivializing title. That's a shame because whatever "informed opinion" you have is masked in a very real disdain for those progressives of opposing views. Don't take my word for it; CathiefromCanada and Orwell's Bastard have succinct posts that encapsulate the attitudes and concerns of those whose "discussion" on the subject you find so "regressive".
I think what you maybe don't get about this whole "progessive blogger" fiasco is that it's not so much the difference of opinion on abortion that is the problem, it's your refusal to grasp that what is an intellectual exercise to you is my fucking LIFE, and the lives of other women and people with uteri in this country. Our LIVES and FREEDOM are at stake.
No democracy should be debating human rights. And no minority rights should be decided by the majority. And you should know that part of being a progressive is checking your privilege and LISTENING to the people whose rights you should be fighting for, not flippantly dismissing as some kind of theoretical discussion.
Jymn, I don't think I've been condescending anywhere. I endeavour to respect everyone, even when there are differences of opinion.
Pedgehog...I do think human rights are as worthy of debate now as they have been in the past.
FWIW, I don't think adopting the legal position of countries like many in Europe would be regressive.
"If it then leads to an attempt to re-criminalize abortion I will inform myself and reach an opinion based on the facts presented."
How nice for you that this is the extent of what could happen to you if there is an attempt to re-criminalize abortion.
More than one person is telling you to listen.
Nonsense. For one thing, christofascists like Woodworth aren't interested in debating this for politeness' and fairness' sake; he's looking to open a crack in women's rights with one goal, and only one goal, in mind: end women's self determinate reproductive health rights. He wouldn't bother with it if that wasn't what he and his fellow bible thumpers really wanted. This is the classic wedge issue with these clowns who want to strip women of their rights, shackle them to a chain that runs from the bedroom to the kitchen to the church pew and back, and then set up their own self-serving theocracy in this country. Innate, inalienable human rights are non-debatable. I say fuck 'im...
Just to let you know how very little you know about this, let me tell you that despite the fact Europeans have a few laws on the books, it is a whole lot easier for women to get late term abortions there. The reason for this is late term abortions are done for fetal or maternal indications, and the bar is set so much higher in Canada, because doctors and hospitals are terrified of being (wrongly) accused of committing infanticide, as they were in Alberta in the late 90s by Jason Kenney and the Reform Party and Link Byfield of Alberta Report (now a Wild Rose party candidate). So before you go on
pretending you know so much about this subject, I am here to tell you that you know squat about how things work. But because of people like you, women and their families suffer the tragic consequences of lethal fetal conditions that cannot be mitigated by abortion.
Soapbox FAIL
You dont get to tell me what happens to my body. Take your philosophy and arguements and place them somewhere in your own body, or not, it should be your decision.
As I said in one of my blogpost Gordie, if you have an issue with your mommy, get over it.
So she had the power to give life to you or not.
Whatever your fury may be over the fact a woman had that kind of power over you once upon a time, you're letting it dictate your need to allow the government control over all women's bodies.
The CONtempt Party is framing the debate, on their terms.
It appears you're quite happy with that.
How did I instinctively know it was a man who wrote this drivel. I had a vasectomy, potentially aborting millions of children. Where were you then? What is your position on non-medically necessary vasectomy?
Since when should men make that decision? I'm sure I would have appreciated women fighting against my choice not to create more unwanted children.
You're all welcome to comment as you see fit...unlike many blogs I don't censor comments.
If it makes some feel better to believe I have so called 'mommy issues' or that I have a hate on for women, that's absolutely your perogative. I don't believe either to be the case, but hey...we're all entitled to our opinions and the expression of same...although I'm likely in the minority on that viewpoint in light of recent comments.
Cheers
Post a Comment