Canadian Controversy: An Unspoken Understanding?

[FiveParadox]

Two days ago, one of our honourable senators sparked a fury amongst women’s rights groups on the issue of our maternal health strategy. The Honourable Senator Nancy Ruth C.M. (Cluny) said to a crowd of women’s rights supporters that they should “shut the **** up” about the abortion aspect of Canada’s maternal health strategy, cautioning the women against making the issue high profile and, therefore, a potential election issue.

Our opposition parties in the House of Commons have, as expected, immediately panned the honourable senator for having made the comments — but, on a certain level, I actually agree with the senator. As she mentioned, Canadians have unrestricted access to the free and safe performance of abortion, and this is despite the significant number of Canadians who oppose the practice in any of its forms. Yet, despite the issue’s highly divisive and polarised nature, it is almost nowhere to be seen on the Canadian political scene.

Is there an unspoken convention amongst Canadians on how to handle these sorts of controversial issues?

It seems to me that Canadians tend to avoid a hashed-out, comprehensive debate on such sensitive topics; despite the fact that there are so many opponents of abortion in Canada, there has been no significant debate on the practice in either House of the Parliament of Canada in years. The same is true with same-sex marriage for civil purposes, which despite its lingering controversy, is almost a taboo subject in politics, and even between everyday Canadians.

Is there perhaps a Canadian characteristic to avoid conflict? Though there are turbulent waters in the depth of the Canadian abortion debate, the surface nonetheless seems deceptively calm; and even Senator Ruth (sitting for the Conservative Party of Canada) has now encouraged women’s groups to keep quiet about the issue. It makes sense, to a degree; access to abortion has been established, and by minimising debate on the issue, we greatly reduce the chance of re-introductions of the struck-down sections of the Criminal Code.

It may be that this honourable senator’s plea for silence could be a more effective tool to ensure continued access to abortion, than the current strategy of screaming from the rooftops. The knee-jerk reaction from our opposition parties is certainly not surprising, and it’s no shocker that Her Majesty’s Government for Canada immediately distanced itself from the honourable senator’s remarks.

Here’s the article that led to my above remarks:

• Canadian Broadcasting Corporation • homepage • article

 

[Cliffy]

Like the constitution, Quebec separatism, abortion is an emotional issue that makes people crazy because they lose all logic and rational thought processes. The senator is out of line. The government is pushing their religious views onto the world stage. Do they think we don't know that if they succeed, they will not force anti-abortion legislation through at home? Harper figures he has carte blanch because he knows the liberals will lose the next election if they support a non-confidence vote and force an early election. He has them by the short and curlies and he just might try to pull off his religious beliefs on the rest of us. He is holding woman's rights groups hostage by telling them to shut up, but if they do, it will be double jeopardy.

 

[Praxius]

"It seems to me that Canadians tend to avoid a hashed-out, comprehensive debate on such sensitive topics" ~

Obviously you haven't seen the countless threads in these forums alone on the subject between fellow Canadians.

Just because you say there's a "Significant" number of opponents against Abortion, doesn't automatically mean it's "Significant" enough to warrant opening up this debate in the government.... AGAIN.

Don't like Abortion?

Don't have an Abortion.

Problem solved.

Let others worry about their own lives and situations, mind your own.

"Is there perhaps a Canadian characteristic to avoid conflict?"

Once again, just look at the debates here in these forums to find out that answer..... secondly, go through CBC's news links on abortion related reports and check the hundreds/thousands of comments at the bottom of each.

"Though there are turbulent waters in the depth of the Canadian abortion debate, the surface nonetheless seems deceptively calm"

Well just because we don't go around blowing up abortion clinics, and have politicians tossing propaganda at the public to polarize the divisions, doesn't mean nobody cares about the topic or that it's not being discussed.

 

[Magnus]

Don't like Abortion?

Don't have an Abortion.

Problem solved.

Don't want a baby?

Don't have sex.

Problem solved.

Unlike abortion, this solution poses no moral issue whatsoever. I should be given a ****ing medal.

 

[darkbeaver]

This red herring moral issue is a favourite insturment of the controllers, specimins who have no moral hesitation in the brutal elimination of millions of men women and children compel us to debate annually a micro aspect of the hugely more real situation, which allows us the promise of premature relief for a problem unsolved.

 

[AnnaG]

Two days ago, one of our honourable senators sparked a fury amongst women’s rights groups on the issue of our maternal health strategy. The Honourable Senator Nancy Ruth C.M. (Cluny) said to a crowd of women’s rights supporters that they should “shut the **** up” about the abortion aspect of Canada’s maternal health strategy, cautioning the women against making the issue high profile and, therefore, a potential election issue.

Our opposition parties in the House of Commons have, as expected, immediately panned the honourable senator for having made the comments — but, on a certain level, I actually agree with the senator. As she mentioned, Canadians have unrestricted access to the free and safe performance of abortion, and this is despite the significant number of Canadians who oppose the practice in any of its forms. Yet, despite the issue’s highly divisive and polarised nature, it is almost nowhere to be seen on the Canadian political scene.

Is there an unspoken convention amongst Canadians on how to handle these sorts of controversial issues?

It seems to me that Canadians tend to avoid a hashed-out, comprehensive debate on such sensitive topics; despite the fact that there are so many opponents of abortion in Canada, there has been no significant debate on the practice in either House of the Parliament of Canada in years. The same is true with same-sex marriage for civil purposes, which despite its lingering controversy, is almost a taboo subject in politics, and even between everyday Canadians.

Is there perhaps a Canadian characteristic to avoid conflict? Though there are turbulent waters in the depth of the Canadian abortion debate, the surface nonetheless seems deceptively calm; and even Senator Ruth (sitting for the Conservative Party of Canada) has now encouraged women’s groups to keep quiet about the issue. It makes sense, to a degree; access to abortion has been established, and by minimising debate on the issue, we greatly reduce the chance of re-introductions of the struck-down sections of the Criminal Code.

It may be that this honourable senator’s plea for silence could be a more effective tool to ensure continued access to abortion, than the current strategy of screaming from the rooftops. The knee-jerk reaction from our opposition parties is certainly not surprising, and it’s no shocker that Her Majesty’s Government for Canada immediately distanced itself from the honourable senator’s remarks.

Here’s the article that led to my above remarks:

• Canadian Broadcasting Corporation • homepage • article

Yup, very few politicians have any backbone. Also, IMO, politiicians should not be telling the electorate to shut up. If some of the public wants a discussion, they shopuld have it, they pay pols wages. Gawd, it'd be nice to be able to fire these idiots on the spot.

 

[TenPenny]

If more of our politicians had backbone, abortion likely would be illegal, since many of our politicians are/have been Catholics.

 

[gerryh]

Don't want a baby?

Don't have sex.

Problem solved.

Unlike abortion, this solution poses no moral issue whatsoever. I should be given a ****ing medal.

This is the RCC's stance, so it is not something new. What would be new, would be people not ****ting on them for taking the abstinence stance.

 

[Praxius]

Don't want a baby?

Don't have sex.

Problem solved.

Unlike abortion, this solution poses no moral issue whatsoever. I should be given a ****ing medal.

Not really since the reasons of having/not having sex or having/not having a baby are not as cut and dry as you'd like it to sound.

Regardless, the difference between the two aspects is that one is about the individual being able to make their own decisions about their life and their body, and the other is to remove those decisions and forcing someone to live by your own set of subjective morals because you think it's the right thing to do.

The real issue is about freedom of choice, regardless of your views on those choices. They are allowed to make the decision on whether or not to have an abortion, just as you are, ie: Don't like abortion? Don't have one.

Chances are, in my entire life, when I do end up having to consider having a child in my life or not, I won't opt for an abortion, nor do I ever foresee me deciding to ever have one..... but once again, that's still my and my partner's decision to make and just because we don't use that option, that doesn't mean that option should be removed for others.

Even if I or my partner never opt for abortion, that doesn't give you or anybody else the right to remove that option from either of us to choose from.

 

[Cliffy]

Sometimes biology trumps logic. The need to procreate the species is sometimes overwhelming. Putting a bunch of moralistic judgments on any human sexuality is just plain being a budinski. What other people do with their sexuality (consensual) is none of anybody's business. Unless it is harming the other person (ie: children, raping a woman) it is none of our business.

 

[gerryh]

Sometimes biology trumps logic. The need to procreate the species is sometimes overwhelming. Putting a bunch of moralistic judgments on any human sexuality is just plain being a budinski. What other people do with their sexuality (consensual) is none of anybody's business. Unless it is harming the other person (ie: children, raping a woman) it is none of our business.

so..... killing the baby through abortion is not harming children? Interesting.