Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Abortion BACK On The (Hidden) Agenda!

From Stephen Woodworth this morning:

A recent poll disclosed that 80% of Canadians believe that Canadian law protects the fundamental human rights of children before birth in the later stages of gestation.

In fact, the opposite is true.  Canadian law provides no human rights protection whatsoever for children before the moment of complete birth. 

[...]

The important question is whether this 400 year old Canadian law is supported by 21st century medical science and principles of human rights.  Perhaps Canadians should at least examine this question.  MP Stephen Woodworth proposes that Parliament has a responsibility to lead that examination.

I love it when Tories examine this question!  Their polling numbers imitate a WWII dive-bomber!  You start, Stephen.  Put a private member's bill on the table in regards to...I don't know...banning late term abortions; see who rallies to your side.

6 comments:

Robert G. Harvie said...

It's a sort of interesting question, though, isn't it?

Personally, I'm very pro-choice, but we seem to have developed a slightly unhealthy void of ethical guidelines with reproductive issues, in general, with a sort of "anything goes" mentality.

65 years old and you want another child. Why not?

Terminate a fetus 30 second before birth.. sure.

Just because a question is difficult, doesn't mean it shouldn't be asked. Though, candidly, I share your concern that it can be very alluring once a standard is created to seek to move that standard to suit your personal ethical vision.

If 8 months and three weeks is the standard, why not 8 months. Why not 6 months.. why not just prevent it all together.

I get it.

I'm just not sure that no law at all is the best choice, even for pro-choice.

Robert McClelland said...

Terminate a fetus 30 second before birth.. sure.

That doesn't happen. Except in very rare and medically necessary circumstances abortion doctors won't abort third trimester fetuses. So there is simply no reason to create a law to tackle a problem that doesn't exist.

sharonapple88 said...

That doesn't happen. Except in very rare and medically necessary circumstances abortion doctors won't abort third trimester fetuses. So there is simply no reason to create a law to tackle a problem that doesn't exist.

But Robert, theoretically it could. We have to change the laws to stop us from imagining these horrific scenarios. <--- Tongue firmly in cheek.

Seriously, there are no doctors or clinics in the country who'll perform an elective abortion past the twenty-fourth week (second trimester). Not even Morgentaler will give you one at this point. The CMA 's policy is no elective past the twentieth week.

Paul Raposo said...

@Robert McClelland

During a debate with a conservative anti-choice man, I questioned him on saving the mothers life, by aborting the baby, and he replied, "Mother be damned! Save that baby first." That pretty much sums up the mindset of these people.

Paul Raposo said...

@Robert G. Harvie

Maybe if women, especially younger women, weren't treated like monsters for wanting to use some form of birth control, there would be fewer pregnancies.

I'm not sure about Canada, but the highest number of teen pregnancies in America, happen in red states, and in fundamentalist Christian families.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2795202

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/03/081103fa_fact_talbot

Oemissions said...

let's deal with all the child poverty in CANADA first.
In the US, 1 in 4/5 of the homeless are children
And then, there is the #1 cause of death for youth: automobile accidents
Dr Tiller in the US did do some 3rd trimester abortions, like on a 13 yr old girl raped constantly by her abusive father