Parliamentary group wants to reopen abortion debate

[Francis2004]

Do you think the Abortion Debate should be re-opened as this MP wants it to be ?

Has this been a sore point long enough in politics. But it has also divided many a family and friends in the past. Has it done so to you ?

I have always had the opinion that if you produce a child you should be responsible enough to have the child..

But I do believe there are circumstances where Abortion is a necessary evil. I also see so many children alone on the streets and wonder why we would bring in so many more that Welfare and the system cannot handle even in a country such as Canada. I deal with those issues daily and as a father have been told the usual line "I did not ask to be born" and have to wonder in some cases if that really applies ?

WINNIPEG -- The new chairman of a secretive pro-life Parliamentary caucus is pledging to rekindle the abortion debate in Canada and bring "more value" to the lives of unborn children.

Although Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said he's not interested in reopening the divisive issue, Winnipeg MP Rod Bruinooge told The Canadian Press people need to be better educated about Canada's abortion stance, which he says puts the country in a "class of its own."



"Very few Canadians appreciate the fact that essentially until a child takes its first breath, it has less value than a kidney," says Bruinooge.



"In Canada you can't remove your kidney and put it on eBay and auction it off. That is illegal. Whereas you actually can end a beating heart of an unborn child the second before it's delivered. Most Canadians would agree that is truly a poor bioethical position for our country to be in."


Pro-choice advocates say Canadian doctors only perform such later-term procedures if there's a serious threat to the health of the mother or if it's virtually certain the baby wouldn't survive past birth.

CTV.ca | Parliamentary group wants to reopen abortion debate

What do you think of these motives and actions of this MP ?

 

[Spade]

Sir Francis queried, "What do you think of these motives and actions of this MP ?"

Pandering to his electoral base as he sees this Parliament stillborn!

 

[Nuggler]

"" people need to be better educated about Canada's abortion stance, which he says puts the country in a "class of its own."

____________________________________

Good class. Glad to be in it.

We have a country whose economy is collapsing and this dips h i t wants to tear the scab off an old wound, and turn back the clock.

Typical red neck con.

 

[karrie]

"In Canada you can't remove your kidney and put it on eBay and auction it off. That is illegal. Whereas you actually can end a beating heart of an unborn child the second before it's delivered. Most Canadians would agree that is truly a poor bioethical position for our country to be in."

I don't like abortion. Who does though, right? I'd like to see restrictions. But, with people who make ridiculous statements like this spear heading the debate, it will never get anywhere. WTF does auctioning off a kidney have to do with terminating a pregnancy? What a moron.

 

[Kreskin]

Canada's in a class of it's own alright - a constitutionally protected right that politicians can't screw up through legislation. We're the only ones who have it right.

 

[lone wolf]

I believe if a girl doesn't want to be pregnant, she won't be. It's her choice. Though I can't support ending a life, it's not my right to decide how another person should live her life either. If she's going to terminate the pregnancy, she should have sanitary conditions and medical assistance.

 

[Machjo]

I believe that life begins at conception.

However, I also believe that politicians ought to keep promises. I would agree with legally recognizing life to begin at conception, but now that Harper has promised not to open this debate, I think he ought to keep his word. After all, all religions teach us to be honest.

How much does the abortion debate affect my electoral choices? Well, I appreciate honesty and integrity even more. If a politician disagrees with me on the abortion debate but is honest about his beliefs and does what he promises to do, I'm likely to vote for him over a politician I agree with on abortion but plays sneeky games to get his way.

I also believe that other factors are as important as abortion. For instance, though I don't agree with abortion, I also believe that society ought to ensure that the mother gets the educaiotn she needs to be able to stand on her own two feet.

In this sence I could say that I'm economically conservative (example, inflation, debt, interest rates, taxes), socially progressive (example, UN, international peace, world federation, ensuring that the poorest get an education) and morally conservative (pro-life, etc.). So in Canada it can be difficult to find a party with the right mix.

 

[Francis2004]

Sir Francis queried, "What do you think of these motives and actions of this MP ?"

Pandering to his electoral base as he sees this Parliament stillborn!

Spade, your such a "Card".... hehehe

 

[Francis2004]

"" people need to be better educated about Canada's abortion stance, which he says puts the country in a "class of its own."

____________________________________

Good class. Glad to be in it.

We have a country whose economy is collapsing and this dips h i t wants to tear the scab off an old wound, and turn back the clock.

Typical red neck con.

Nugg, this is especially when special interest groups usually start to focus on these topics. When people have little or no time to stress out on these items that do not impact their immediate life. To many this is not a priority as they try to keep their jobs, feed families and try to stay afloat ( keep a mortgage ).

Attack while everyone is worried about their own wounds.

 

[karrie]

I believe if a girl doesn't want to be pregnant, she won't be. It's her choice. Though I can't support ending a life, it's not my right to decide how another person should live her life either. If she's going to terminate the pregnancy, she should have sanitary conditions and medical assistance.

my main disagreement is, there's a difference between deciding to not be pregnant anymore, and actually terminating the life. Fine, if a woman or girl hits 30 weeks and wants to end the pregnancy, end the pregnancy... it doesn't need to mean killing the baby. They're viable by that point.

 

[Unforgiven]

It's a ruse.

 

[Machjo]

""

Typical red neck con.

Interesting. I'll have to start a thread on the understanding of 'red neck'.

 

[Francis2004]

my main disagreement is, there's a difference between deciding to not be pregnant anymore, and actually terminating the life. Fine, if a woman or girl hits 30 weeks and wants to end the pregnancy, end the pregnancy... it doesn't need to mean killing the baby. They're viable by that point.

As i have said I think people need to be responsible.

But when required if required and someone who hits 30 weeks and has not decided or changed their minds. Unless it can be proven the child will not survive ( stillborn ) or will cause death to both I think it becomes more of a moral issue. Do we always need Government to tell us what to do or are we "human" enough to know when right is right and wrong is what should nit be done..

 

[karrie]

As i have said I think people need to be responsible.

But when required if required and someone who hits 30 weeks and has not decided or changed their minds. Unless it can be proven the child will not survive ( stillborn ) or will cause death to both I think it becomes more of a moral issue. Do we always need Government to tell us what to do or are we "human" enough to know when right is right and wrong is what should nit be done..

If we didn't need governments to interfere and tell people how to act, we wouldn't need a legal system in the first place. We wouldn't need public awareness campaigns to explain to people that shaking your baby into unconsciousness is not okay. We wouldn't need to broadcast the institution of drop off centers for babies and children, to prevent them being murdered or thrown in a dumpster rather than dropped off at a hospital, fire department, police station, or church. If people on the whole were responsible, abortion wouldn't be necessary except in cases of medical necessity. There's a lot that would be different. But as it would appear... people on the whole are not that great.

 

[lone wolf]

my main disagreement is, there's a difference between deciding to not be pregnant anymore, and actually terminating the life. Fine, if a woman or girl hits 30 weeks and wants to end the pregnancy, end the pregnancy... it doesn't need to mean killing the baby. They're viable by that point.

I agree ... but it's not my choice either. If she can live with her decision, then really it's up to her. What right do I have to impose my morals on anyone else? Even in the case of stillbirth or gross defect, the opportunity still exists to save another several lives with harvested organs.

 

[Kreskin]

my main disagreement is, there's a difference between deciding to not be pregnant anymore, and actually terminating the life. Fine, if a woman or girl hits 30 weeks and wants to end the pregnancy, end the pregnancy... it doesn't need to mean killing the baby. They're viable by that point.

I've always wondered if anyone has ever ended a pregnancy at say 32 weeks just because they didn't want a baby anymore. I really doubt that ever occurs without some very serious issues on the table, such as major malformation of the fetus. A decision like that becomes too complicated for the legal system; it's impossible to address all of the potential ethical and medical issues in a 4-sentence act of parliament.

 

[karrie]

What right do I have to impose my morals on anyone else?

While I get what you're saying, society doesn't function without imposing morals upon others. It's almost entirely what the legal system is, both criminal and civil.

 

[karrie]

I've always wondered if anyone has ever ended a pregnancy at say 32 weeks just because they didn't want a baby anymore. I really doubt that ever occurs without some very serious issues on the table, such as major malformation of the fetus. A decision like that becomes too complicated for the legal system; it's impossible to address all of the potential ethical and medical issues in a 4-sentence act of parliament.

I've known women who didn't even know they were pregnant until they were more than 20 weeks into a pregnancy, so I would assume that yes, there have been women who have found out at a late stage they were pregnant, and gone through with an abortion anyhow. It's their right. And I see nothing wrong with them having the right to end a pregnancy. Fine. That's granted to them. But why do we grant no right to medical assessment and possible intervention for the fetus in those cases, even if they're rare?

 

[Said1]

Afford someone the right to intervene on behalf of the fetus? How would something like be implemented?

 

[karrie]

Afford someone the right to intervene on behalf of the fetus? How would something like be implemented?

Anytime anyone is ever injured or ill, the medical establishment is faced with the job of assessing what is necessary, what is viable. They make those decisions for patients on a day to day basis. I don't see where a fetus would be any different than any other person who enters a hospital. I'm not sure where the line is that a fairly regular survival rate occurs is, but, when I was going through my pregnancies, we were often given the 20 week and 2 lb marks as the points past which we could breathe a bit easier, as a 'miscarriage' is now termed a 'premie', and survival rates are much improved. I threw out 30 weeks to be on the conservative side. I'm no doctor though, and won't pretend to be one.