Late-Term Abortion, Cutting Through The Rhetoric

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.

Morgentaler said he has concerns about late-term abortions.
"We don't abort babies, we want to abort fetuses before they become babies," (my bolding)

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

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:

"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".

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.

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

The Debate Over Late Term Abortions

It may very well be that the debate over abortion in general and late-term abortions in particular is so polarized that reasonable discussion is impossible. Call me an optimist or a fool, but I’m going to give it a shot anyway. I’m trying very hard to stake out some middle ground in this battle, but it appears there are many who view any accommodation of Pro-Choice concerns as giving into lies and propaganda. And on the Pro-Life side as well, there are many who view abortion as morally wrong and believe there should be legislation banning the procedure altogether.

In my last entry I posed this question:

Is there any chance of reasonable accommodation from the Pro-Choice lobby? Would there be objections to Canada having a law which made abortion illegal during say... the last month of pregnancy?

Judging by the comments posted, (10 so far in one day) the answer is a resounding, "NO"!!!

I committed to doing some research on this topic, but in so doing I like to avoid advocacy groups...both Pro-Choice and Pro Life. Each camp will deride any facts presented by the other as propaganda. I was able to find an article dated September 12, 2004 from CTV, and given that CTV is a mainstream media outlet I think that mitigates against claims of bias from either side.

The article speaks about efforts by Quebec's Health Ministry to open a clinic that would offer late-term abortions. I haven't been able to find anything stating whether or not they were successful in their efforts, but I consider that a moot point. Such a clinic would be perfectly legal, of that there can be no dispute. And that is what we're debating here, whether or not abortion should be legal in the later stages of pregnancy when a fetus is deemed "viable". That is to say when it could live autonomous of the mother.

The CTV news article did have an interesting quote from Dr. Henry Morgentaler. Here's the snippet:

Morgentaler said he has concerns about late-term abortions.
"We don't abort babies, we want to abort fetuses before they become babies," Morgentaler said from his Toronto clinic.
"Around 24 weeks I have ethical problems doing that." (my bold)

Morals and ethics are the foundation of laws. Everyone I know has moral and ethical problems with things like murder, rape or incest. And we have laws on the books concerning those found guilty of such activities, we label them as criminals.

Should it be a crime to take away the life of a fetus that is so far developed it could live outside of the womb? Don't knee jerk on this, mull it over for at least a minute or two. I realize this is a divisive and contentious debate, but it is one that is important. As things currently stand a child has no rights under our laws until it leaves the womb and draws his or her first breath. Would extending legal protection to a viable fetus be regressive or progressive? When you expand rights it always comes with a cost. When Lincoln emancipated the slaves it impacted slave owners. When women were finally granted the right to vote it diluted the weight of a man's vote. If a fetus were to be given rights at some point before birth it would impact on pregnant women.

Actions have consequences, and when the action is sexual there's the potential for pregnancy. Yes I'm aware that women are solely responsible for carrying a child, and I have heard the argument that it is unfair to force women to carry a baby to term against her will. And I actually agree with that, but only to a point.

And here's where I get to cheese off the Pro-Life lobby...finally. If there is ever to be a law in this country banning late term abortions (except in cases where the health of the mother is in question) then there would have to be some give on the other side.

Abortion would have to be available "ON DEMAND" during the first trimester. Additionally it would have to be state funded and totally anonymous. If there's to be give on one side there has to be accommodation on the other as well. I'll end this here with a question for those on the Pro-Life side of this debate:

Is there any chance of reasonable accommodation from the Pro-Life lobby? Would there be objections to Canada having a law enshrining a woman's right to state funded and totally anonymous abortion procedures on demand during the first trimester?

Previous Posts On The Abortion Debate

• Re-Opening The Abortion Debate
• Conservative MP Wants Abortion Debate Reopened
• Abortion in Canada Legal – Right Up Until Time of Birth

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

Abortion in Canada Legal – Right Up Until Time of Birth

Read the subject line again please. Did you know that? Were you aware of the fact that in Canada it is legal for an abortion to take place any time during pregnancy? That includes right up until the time a birth is about to take place. If you weren’t aware of this fact you’re in good company. According to a poll done by Angus Reid fully 92% of Canadians were not aware that abortion is legal during the full nine months of gestation. NEWSWIRE STORY

For those wishing this story would just go away…well, it ain’t happening. This is probably one of the touchiest topics going, it’s definitely something to avoid as a topic for polite dinner conversation. But for many people this is more than just a topic of conversation, it is a crusade. While there’s no indication as to who paid for the poll, I suspect it might be Signal Hill, an advocacy group mentioned 3 times in the on-line version of the press release.

In looking at their website I’m struck by the reasonableness of tone and lack of inflammatory statements. Just one quick snippet:

IS SIGNAL HILL TRYING TO MAKE ABORTION ILLEGAL?

“Concentrating on the legality of the issue is not our position. We believe that when abortion is chosen it is because it is perceived as the least undesirable option available to the woman and her family. We believe that if a woman is fully informed of all of the options available to her, and of the physical and psychological dangers to her and to her preborn baby, abortion will rarely be chosen”.

That strikes me as pretty fair commentary. Those against criminalizing abortion call themselves ‘Pro-Choice’ and not ‘Pro-Abortion’ after all. I’m going to cut against the progressive grain here and pose a question. Is there any chance of reasonable accommodation from the Pro-Choice lobby? Would there be objections to Canada having a law which made abortion illegal during say... the last month of pregnancy?

I know some will make the point that in Canada abortions are almost never performed during the last month, excepting when the life of the mother is in danger. Assuming that to be true, what would be the harm in making it illegal, except in cases where the mother might die during child birth?

On a personal level I’m more inclined to the Pro-Choice argument, especially if it’s a question of extremes...a total ban versus having no law. But I do think at some point a fetus should have some rights, especially if the fetus is so far developed that he/she could live autonomous of the mother.

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

Taking Canadian Politics Religiously

It occurred to me that many Canadians take their political allegiances as seriously as some people take their religion. Whether its Conservative, Liberal or NDP, all three have supporters who will vote for their party no matter what. Personally no single party has been able to hold my allegiance for more than a couple of elections in a row. I’ve written on here before that during my voting life I’ve marked an X beside all of the three aforementioned parties.

Here in cyberspace political blogs abound, but most I’m finding have a decidedly partisan bent. I myself have been accused of being ‘anti conservative’ by at least a couple of readers. While I can understand the rationale given some of my ‘Anti-Harper’ rants, I do not consider myself “anti” Conservative at all. While I am may not happy with the current leadership of the Tories, dislike or mistrust of an individual, (or individuals) should not be construed as being against any particular party.

All of Canada’s national parties have blogging groups, however I’ve decided to leave Canadian Soapbox non-aligned. At one point I did put up a Liblogs ‘button’, I saw it as a potential way to gain readership. I’ve since removed it, and I’m content with belonging to Progressive Bloggers.

On a personal level my political allegiances (or lack of same) have mirrored my religious observance and spirituality. I’ve attended numerous churches, everything from United and Baptist to Pentecostal and Roman Catholic. I’ve gone to a Jehovah’s Witness service (once) and to the Mormon Church (LDS) as well. I’ve even dabbled in alternative spiritualities like Paganism and Wicca. I’ve come to the conclusion that no single group has a monopoly on truth, be it in the political or spiritual realm.

I think my viewpoint is in line with the majority of Canadians, at least in terms of politics. If everyone always voted for the same party, then elections would be a useless exercise. As things currently stand I can find reasons to like certain positions of all our national parties, and other reasons to dislike them. It comes down to priorities. I know I will never find a party that perfectly mirrors my take on the issues, so I have to decide which issues are the most important to me.

On the issue of Canada’s military operation in Afghanistan, I am vehemently opposed. The stated reasons for our continued occupation are full of holes so big you could drive a gas pipeline through them. Which is of course why we’re there, and the NDP is the only viable national party opposed to our involvement. But the NDP makes no bones about its association with organized labour, which is something I’m not very keen on. Seeing how Canada’s unions have been operating during this economic crisis (the Ottawa Transit Strike being one example) I’m not at all confident in Jack Layton’s ability to manage Canada’s economy.

As far as the Conservatives are concerned, I would like to see less government and I do think lower taxes would benefit the economy. While I’m concerned about the rampant growth of government I haven’t seen much of a commitment on that front from the current crew of Tories. The Conservatives talk about less government, but deliver more. I’m also worried about the number of religious fanatics who have infiltrated the CPC, and their desire to open up issues like abortion and same-sex marriage...less government intrusion means less goverment intrusion, you can't pick and choose...sucking and blowing at the same time.

Then there’s the Liberals. Newly minted leader Michael Ignatieff has written that we in the west may have need to use “coercive” interrogation methods in the battle against terrorism. I’m opposed to torture, even when it’s spun in such a way as to use less offensive terms. I did however like the manner in which the Liberals managed to get this country’s financial house in order. Ralph Goodale was following in Paul Martin’s lead as finance minister, ensuring healthy surpluses each year thus enabling us to pare down the accumulated national debt. But it appears the Liberals are in favour of a deficit figure so huge it will wipe out all the gains we’ve made in the last 10-15 years.

It’s a shame Canada’s Green Party didn’t manage to win at least one seat in the last election. There’s a lot to like about the newest player on Canada’s political stage. I gave serious consideration to voting Green back in October, but in the end I couldn’t see them winning in my riding. Elizabeth May might have won a seat herself, had she not made the foolish decision to run against Peter McKay in a riding the Conservatives have held for generations. And the decision to closely associate the Greens with the Liberals was political suicide. Hopefully when the next election comes around the Greens will get their act together and give Canadians a viable alternative that’s fiscally conservative yet socially progressive.

Canadians disagree on a lot of key political issues, of that there is no doubt. But I’m certain there are areas where even the most divergently opposed groups can find common ground. It’s a shame there isn’t a political leader out there right now who can bridge the gaps that divide us. Maybe we can get Barack Obama to take out Canadian citizenship and run up here?

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