Parliamentary group wants to reopen abortion debate


View Poll Results: Abortion in favour, against or a place and limit for it
Are you in Favour of Abortion ? 4 28.57%
Are you in Against Abortion ? 3 21.43%
Do you Believe Abortion has its place but should have limits ? 7 50.00%
Voters: 14. You may not vote on this poll

Francis2004
#1
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 ?

Quote:

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
#2
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
#3
"" 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
#4
"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
#5
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
#6
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
#7
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
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

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
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by NugglerView Post

"" 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
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

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
#11
It's a ruse.
 
Machjo
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by NugglerView Post

""

Typical red neck con.

Interesting. I'll have to start a thread on the understanding of 'red neck'.
 
Francis2004
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

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
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by SirFrancis2004View Post

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
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

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
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

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
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

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
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

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
#19
Afford someone the right to intervene on behalf of the fetus? How would something like be implemented?
 
karrie
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Said1View Post

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.
 
Kreskin
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

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?

Is the MP making assumptions? I wish someone like he would bring forward real cases with all of the facts so a factual discussion can be argued before proposing amended constitutional rights.
 
karrie
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

Is the MP making assumptions? I wish someone like he would bring forward real cases with all of the facts so a factual discussion can be argued before proposing amended constitutional rights.

I think he's definitely making assumptions. Real life cases are impossible to get given the nature of FOIP. It sounds to me that what he's asking for is written assurances that what pro-choice advocates say is true, and doctors are limiting late term abortions.

As it is, the way the law is written, those doctors who are doing as pro-choice says, are, btw, breaking the law. By limiting a woman's access to abortion based on ANY criteria, they are violating her constitutional rights.
 
Said1
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

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.

What you wrote in response to Kreskin sounded as though you are referring to rights - as in the fetus' rights to life. No? Anyway, that's what I was asking, not about viability or medical assessments.
 
karrie
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Said1View Post

What you wrote in response to Kreskin sounded as though you are referring to rights - as in the fetus' rights to life. No? Anyway, that's what I was asking, not about viability or medical assessments.

A person is considered to have rights once they've been born. What would be wrong with giving the medical profession the ability to decide if a fetus has been born or aborted, depending on fetal development and viability? They draw a line already when it comes to defining miscarried or pre-mature birth. Don't get too hung up on one word.
 
Kreskin
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

I think he's definitely making assumptions. Real life cases are impossible to get given the nature of FOIP. It sounds to me that what he's asking for is written assurances that what pro-choice advocates say is true, and doctors are limiting late term abortions.

As it is, the way the law is written, those doctors who are doing as pro-choice says, are, btw, breaking the law. By limiting a woman's access to abortion based on ANY criteria, they are violating her constitutional rights.

What I have a problem with is that potentially, and likely, the law would be written for cases that don't exist. And it could never cover the issue comprehensively, thus it will be subject to interpretation and likely have unintentional consequences. A complete waste of time and an attack on personal rights is more likely what we'll get out of it.
 
karrie
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

What I have a problem with is that potentially, and likely, the law would be written for cases that don't exist. And it could never cover the issue comprehensively, thus it will be subject to interpretation and likely have unintentional consequences. A complete waste of time and an attack on personal rights is more likely what we'll get out of it.

Like I said right off the hop in this thread... with people like him leading the discussion, it will go nowhere.
 
Unforgiven
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

Like I said right off the hop in this thread... with people like him leading the discussion, it will go nowhere.

Is it supposed to go somewhere? Or is it simple something to distract you so that you aren't likely to think about the real problem?
 
Kreskin
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by UnforgivenView Post

Is it supposed to go somewhere? Or is it simple something to distract you so that you aren't likely to think about the real problem?

What problem?
 
lone wolf
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

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.

If a person's errant way of life steps on someone else's toes, then I would agree with you. Between a woman and her conscience is no place for laws to tread. Unfortunately, a fetus has no more rights than a wart in medical or legal terms. Personally, I'm inclined to believe something controversial is just what's needed to focus rage away from Harper's non-government.
 
karrie
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

Between a woman and her conscience is no place for laws to tread. Unfortunately, a fetus has no more rights than a wart in medical or legal terms.

And if a fetus can survive once delivered outside of its mother? Where do your morals come in then? If a life can survive without its mother, does she still have the right to extinguish it?
 

Similar Threads

28
Parliamentary Decorum
by Mowich | Mar 5th, 2010
no new posts