Parliamentary group wants to reopen abortion debate

[karrie]

Why not force the mother to carry the baby to term, instead? Seriously, if someone else is opting to keep the fetus alive when the mother had decided that she doesn't want it, why take risks with a premature birth? I'm not being facetious, just tossing some things out there. I can just hear the pro-lifers on that one.

Canadian law has secured women the right to security of person through the termination of a pregnancy. That's why I won't even bother to assert that women should be forced to carry a pregnancy. But, what I will say is that guaranteeing a woman's right to freedom of her own body isn't the same as guaranteeing her the right to end a fetus's life. One does not go hand in hand with the other given modern medicine's ability to maintain life.

 

[karrie]

I'd like to point out that while this is posted in the cage, conversation in here (honest to god conversation!) hasn't warranted the SC status. It's very nice to see.

 

[Said1]

Canadian law has secured women the right to security of person through the termination of a pregnancy. That's why I won't even bother to assert that women should be forced to carry a pregnancy. But, what I will say is that guaranteeing a woman's right to freedom of her own body isn't the same as guaranteeing her the right to end a fetus's life. One does not go hand in hand with the other given modern medicine's ability to maintain life.

Canadian law permits termination of pregnancy, to a point. Viability and quality of life do not go hand in hand and what you suggest disregards that fact.

 

[karrie]

Canadian law permits termination of pregnancy, to a point. Viability and quality of life do not go hand in hand and what you suggest disregards that fact.

No... what I suggested was that doctors be able to make the balanced determination (viability and health) upon termination of the pregnancy.

 

[Praxius]

CTV.ca | Parliamentary group wants to reopen abortion debate

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.

Exactly why do we have a "Secretive Pro-Life Parliamentary Caucus" in our government in the first place? Why would there be any Secretive groups with their own agendas hiding in our government for that matter?

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.

Which is true, deal with it.

"In Canada you can't remove your kidney and put it on eBay and auction it off. That is illegal.......

No sh*t Sherlock.... when was the last time you seen anybody remove a fetus from their body and sell it on Ebay?

Nice example, idiot.

......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."

No you can't do that you twit. Abortions are only allowed for so long during development before it is too late to have an abortion.... then your only option is to give it up for adoption.

How do ignorant people like this get into our government in the first place?

I thought education was required.

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.

Exactly..... stop lying.

As Canada marks 20 years since a Supreme Court decision struck down Criminal Code restrictions on abortion, some advocates are worried the Conservatives will reopen the debate. But they say they are ready to fight for a woman's right to choose once again if necessary.

At the party's convention recently in Winnipeg, Conservative delegates voted to resurrect a proposal that would create specific criminal charges that could be laid against a suspect who kills or injures a fetus during a crime against a pregnant mother. A bill that would have done that died on the order paper when the last federal election was called.

Critics argue such a law would reopen the abortion debate by recognizing fetal rights.

"I think the debate is ongoing," Bruinooge says. "We need to have a starting point of debating whether or not abortion should be legal right up until the moment of birth."

Regardless of the health, safety and life of the mother in rare occasions?

Me thinks not.... first come, first serve.... the Mother is currently alive, the fetus is not. If you risk the life of the mother through a birth that can end up being fatal for whatever reason, somehow that fetus that hasn't even begun it's life has the rights to survive over the mother?

That makes wonderful sense :roll:

I sure as hell never heard of any situations where some woman was 9 months pregnant and was about to give birth, suddenly changed her mind and a doctor said "sure ok, let me go get the ice cream scoop..."

It's a load of crap and a faulty defense for opening up the debate again.

Bruinooge wouldn't say how many MPs are formally part of the pro-life caucus, but said there are supporters from every party. It's up to individual members to "present their personal philosophy on this issue," he says.

Which could only be one or two from every party for all we know, since it's "Secretive."

Joyce Arthur, co-ordinator of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, says it's not surprising that the pro-life movement is feeling "energized lately." The majority of the Conservative caucus are "publicly anti-choice", she says, and many are lobbying intently against a woman's right to choose.

"It's something that the Conservative party is out of touch with because Canadians don't want to go back to the abortion debate," Arthur says. "People are happy with the status quo. It's working well."

And it is.

Maybe it has to do with the Conservatives also trying to open up the Quebec Seperatist debate again that stirred up this debate to startup again.

Erin Leigh, acting executive director of Canadians for Choice, says the pro-life caucus has been around for years, trying to work behind the scenes to resurrect the abortion debate.

But she says the "silent majority" of Canadians are pro-choice and realize it's important for women to have a safe, accessible alternative to pregnancy.

"If a woman is pregnant and she doesn't want to be, she'll find ways to terminate that pregnancy, legally or illegally."

Indeed that will.

Seriously what do they wish to acomplish from all of this?

A woman if determined enough will remove the fetus one way or another. Then what? Send them to jail?

For what?

The Murder or taking of a life of the fetus? We've already had this debate in regards to whether or not a fetus is considered a living/breathing human with consciousness..... and it's not.

So you send them to jail..... what if during that time they get pregnant in some fashion or another? (It does happen)

Does the Government have the right to remove their overies or uterus to prevent them from "killing" more fetuses?

How far down the rabbit hole do we go here, seriously?

 

[DurkaDurka]

It's a non-issue. It's a few old bible thumpers from various parties who yearn for the days of abortion being criminal. These fringe MP's do not have the support of party leaders as they know that reopening the abortion debate would end their political careers pretty damn quick.

 

[karrie]

There's a thread open on this in the SC already Prax.

 

[Praxius]

My mistake, as I didn't see it anywhere here in the last few days, I didn't see it in the news section of course and wouldn't have known about it in the steel cage unless I decided to skim through every single thread section to make sure.

This was one of the issues I have had with the many various forum sections, as it is pretty difficult to track everything down due to them.

By all means, feel free to delete this thread or merge it into the other if you or any other mod likes.

 

[Francis2004]

I'd like to point out that while this is posted in the cage, conversation in here (honest to god conversation!) hasn't warranted the SC status. It's very nice to see.

Yes Karrie, it has been nice to see.. I had put it here because it is such an explosive topic..

 

[karrie]

My mistake, as I didn't see it anywhere here in the last few days, I didn't see it in the news section of course and wouldn't have known about it in the steel cage unless I decided to skim through every single thread section to make sure.

This was one of the issues I have had with the many various forum sections, as it is pretty difficult to track everything down due to them.

By all means, feel free to delete this thread or merge it into the other if you or any other mod likes.

It's next to impossible to know where all the threads are, even if you've been around, so no worries Prax, I merely wanted to tell you where the convo on it was so you could read through.... it was a good convo. I don't have the power to move or delete this thread. I gave up most of my wizardly abilities quite a while ago.

 

[Praxius]

fair enough, I'll continue my posting in that thread then and ignore this one so that it fades into the dank dark of the archives......

 

[Praxius]

I missed this thread and started another, so I'll just link what I said in my thread to here:

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/n...-group-wants-reopen-abortion.html#post1032669

^ Since I broke my responses up between the quoted report, and I can not edit my post to get the entire thing, I'll just leave it at this.

But their argument is flawed in regards to bringing this all back up as there is no foundation for their reasoning.

One comment I'll take from my other post would be this:

"Regardless of the health, safety and life of the mother in rare occasions?

Me thinks not.... first come, first serve.... the Mother is currently alive, the fetus is not. If you risk the life of the mother through a birth that can end up being fatal for whatever reason, somehow that fetus that hasn't even begun it's life has the rights to survive over the mother?

That makes wonderful sense :roll:

I sure as hell never heard of any situations where some woman was 9 months pregnant and was about to give birth, suddenly changed her mind and a doctor said "sure ok, let me go get the ice cream scoop..."

It's a load of crap and a faulty defense for opening up the debate again."

and perhaps this:

"Seriously what do they wish to acomplish from all of this?

A woman if determined enough will remove the fetus one way or another. Then what? Send them to jail?

For what?

The Murder or taking of a life of the fetus? We've already had this debate in regards to whether or not a fetus is considered a living/breathing human with consciousness..... and it's not.

So you send them to jail..... what if during that time they get pregnant in some fashion or another? (It does happen)

Does the Government have the right to remove their overies or uterus to prevent them from "killing" more fetuses?

How far down the rabbit hole do we go here, seriously?"

 

[Tyr]

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 ?

CTV.ca | Parliamentary group wants to reopen abortion debate

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

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

A case for stronger meds for our MP's?
Pandering to the Hutterites?
Slow day in Manitoba?
Looking for a controversial cause to get his name in the news?

Some backwoods bozo obviously doesn't have much to do.

 

[Tyr]

The Conservatives are bringing in a bill that says that if a pregnant woman is murdered then the person will be charged for killing two people instead of one.

When this law comes in it’s only a matter of time of whoever performs an abortion will be charged with murder.

The person who wrote this bill was looking at the case of banning smoking where cigarettes are legal while smoking is illegal in a majority of places.

Eventually if a woman terminates her pregnancy herself she will be charged with murder.

Then the abortion law will just fizzle to nothing and join the rest of the hundreds of laws that are out of date.

"When this law comes in"

There's the catch. This law will never pass (and rightly so). It's archaic. This isn't the 1800's

 

[karrie]

"When this law comes in"

There's the catch. This law will never pass (and rightly so). It's archaic. This isn't the 1800's

what is archaic about the law exactly?

Current abortion law doesn't say that fetus' have no rights, it simply states that a woman's right to security of person is being violated if forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy. I fail to see what is archaic about a law that would give the fetus the rights its mother has given it. I honestly see no reason that a fetus shouldn't have rights, in so far as they do not supersede those of its mother. Charging someone with double murder for the slaughter of a mother and her child is far from archaic.

 

[Tyr]

what is archaic about the law exactly?

Current abortion law doesn't say that fetus' have no rights, it simply states that a woman's right to security of person is being violated if forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy. I fail to see what is archaic about a law that would give the fetus the rights its mother has given it. I honestly see no reason that a fetus shouldn't have rights, in so far as they do not supersede those of its mother. Charging someone with double murder for the slaughter of a mother and her child is far from archaic.

Charging someone with "double murder" would be applied to murdering two people. A fetus is not a person until it is born

 

[Francis2004]

what is archaic about the law exactly?

Current abortion law doesn't say that fetus' have no rights, it simply states that a woman's right to security of person is being violated if forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy. I fail to see what is archaic about a law that would give the fetus the rights its mother has given it. I honestly see no reason that a fetus shouldn't have rights, in so far as they do not supersede those of its mother. Charging someone with double murder for the slaughter of a mother and her child is far from archaic.

But that is semantics isn't it?

I am in favour of protecting rights with very limited Abortion laws. But once you install such rules you remove all rights at all levels. It is a very fine line you draw and some will push the courts to the limits..

You cannot have it both ways in a hot topic issue that involves the Church and Government..

 

[Tyr]

But that is semantics isn't it?

I am in favour of protecting rights with very limited Abortion laws. But once you install such rules you remove all rights at all levels. It is a very fine line you draw and some will push the courts to the limits..

You cannot have it both ways in a hot topic issue that involves the Church and Government..

Therein lies the crux. The church has no business in the actions of the state (and that includes the laws) and the state has no right to step over the boundries of the church.

Ultimately. Religious or church leaders can preach whatever they want to their congregation (as long as it doesn't border on hate) anad it's the congregation's right to abide by the church's screed.

The right to have an abortion is the law in Canada and does not need adhere to any particular religious belief

Church and state are mutaually exclusive, not inclusive

 

[karrie]

But that is semantics isn't it?

I am in favour of protecting rights with very limited Abortion laws. But once you install such rules you remove all rights at all levels. It is a very fine line you draw and some will push the courts to the limits..

You cannot have it both ways in a hot topic issue that involves the Church and Government..

The tricky part is that by ensuring that women have the right to abort, you also strip them of the right to hold that fetus in their hearts as a person. For women who have lost their 'fetuses' to violence, the fact that a matter of days or weeks has made the difference between murder charges or a lesser charge, is probably a very violated feeling. They probably don't feel that they've earned any special rights by having the law set up the way it is.

And law is all about tricky definitions and word play. Any lawyer knows that.

 

[Francis2004]

The tricky part is that by ensuring that women have the right to abort, you also strip them of the right to hold that fetus in their hearts as a person. For women who have lost their 'fetuses' to violence, the fact that a matter of days or weeks has made the difference between murder charges or a lesser charge, is probably a very violated feeling. They probably don't feel that they've earned any special rights by having the law set up the way it is.

And law is all about tricky definitions and word play. Any lawyer knows that.

My understanding is that at this time there is no Abortion Law in Canada as per the Supreme Court ruling.. Therefore there is no Law at all..

As for stripping rights away, you must always be careful as to how far you go.. Yes Lawyers will always push the envelope to the limit, especially in these types of hot issues.

Adding to the controversy over Bruinooge's pledge to "enter this public discourse" is the Conservative government's commitment to introduce legislation regarding legal protection for pregnant women.


At the party convention last month in Winnipeg, Conservatives passed Resolution P-207 called "Protecting Pregnant Women," which "supports legislation to ensure that individuals who commit violence against a pregnant woman would face additional charges if her unborn child was killed or injured during the commission of a crime against the mother."


Although a party resolution is not binding, to pro-choice advocates like the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, P-207 seems all-too-similar to the controversial private member's Bill C-484.


Introduced by Conservative MP Ken Epp, the bill, known as the "Unborn Victims of Crime Act," would have made killing or injuring a fetus an indictable offence, separate from assault against the mother. Critics of the bill argued it would give a fetus legal status, creating an opening for debate on the legality of abortion.

Harper stiff-arms talk of reopening abortion debate

Yup very slippery...