Tory MPs divided as fetal-rights motion defeated in Commons

[rubecube]

nm

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by East Coast Flame

This is true, but there are still issues like PEI, where abortions are legal, you just can't get them anywhere on the island.

Yup, it's still 2012 and you can't get an abortion in PEI.

I suspect that's more a matter of PEI's tiny population not being able to support a dedicated abortion clinic, though. Aren't there many other medical procedures where Islanders have to travel to the mainland because the required specialist isn't available in-province?

It's also probably easier for someone from Charlottetown to travel to Moncton for an abortion than it is for someone from the remote parts of rural Alberta/Saskatchewan/Manitoba/Ontario/etc. to travel to the nearest city where that service is offered.

[crazy_eoj]

I always find this issue amazing. Some facts to consider:

- Canada is the ONLY nation in the western world to have absolutely NO legal limits on access to abortion.

- The Supreme Court decision in 1988 suggested that although the current law was unconstitutional, parliament should create a discussion on when there should be a restriction on abortion. Noting that clearly a foetus should have some rights as well, especially later in a pregnancy.

- Canada has never done this, and remains one of the very few nations where a third trimester abortion is legal.

While I agree that this debate is a political hot potato and best avoided, some of the comments on this discussion demonstrate a huge misunderstanding of the reality in our country. This bill would have merely followed the supreme court suggestion that has been waiting for over 20 years...

[Azure]

And late term abortions should be illegal unless in emergency situations. For some reason I thought they were.

[East Coast Flame]

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

Look, I wouldn't personally vote for the study- I don't have any interest in seeing any definitions changed... my point is that MP's should be able to vote as they please, regardless of their position in the party.

Absolutely they should, but that doesn't mean they should be immune from criticism or consequences because of those votes.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Pretty disgusting that 30% of our elected representatives still believe in this crap.

Pretty disgusting that only 30% of our Alberta elected representatives, don't.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Pretty disgusting that only 30% of our Alberta elected representatives, don't.

Did I just thank and agree with one of Rerun's posts? My whole world is a lie.

[rubecube]

Also, should note that over 50% of the Conservative caucus voted in favour. The NDP and Libs need to start hammering them on this.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Also, should note that over 50% of the Conservative caucus voted in favour. The NDP and Libs need to start hammering them on this.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Agreeing with a study doesn't mean they agree with outlawing abortion. It means they agree with doing a 'study.'

The fact that Canada apparently allows late-term abortion is reason enough for me to agree with doing a study and figuring out a 'legal' limit of when an abortion can happen, and when it isn't allowed.

I think most people on here would agree that late-term abortions should be illegal.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

And late term abortions should be illegal unless in emergency situations. For some reason I thought they were.

Why?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm not sure what your point is here. Agreeing with a study doesn't mean they agree with outlawing abortion. It means they agree with doing a 'study.'

The fact that Canada apparently allows late-term abortion is reason enough for me to agree with doing a study and figuring out a 'legal' limit of when an abortion can happen, and when it isn't allowed.

I think most people on here would agree that late-term abortions should be illegal.

How many late-term abortions were there in Canada last year, or say the last five years? How many of them were not due to health or safety concerns?

[East Coast Flame]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm not sure what your point is here. Agreeing with a study doesn't mean they agree with outlawing abortion. It means they agree with doing a 'study.'

The fact that Canada apparently allows late-term abortion is reason enough for me to agree with doing a study and figuring out a 'legal' limit of when an abortion can happen, and when it isn't allowed.

I think most people on here would agree that late-term abortions should be illegal.

The definition of life is not a scientific objective, it is an ideological and philosophical one. This "study" has no scientific basis, and it is a complete sham to pretend otherwise. It is completely naive to believe that this is just a "study" and nothing more. It is a foot in the door to re-open the debate.

Considering how rare late-term abortions are in this country, and that there are circumstances where late-term abortions are necessary, I am against making them illegal.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Why?

Mostly because a fetus can at times survive if born after the 21st week. Late-term is anything over 20 weeks from the definitions I could find.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by rubecube

How many late-term abortions were there in Canada last year, or say the last five years? How many of them were not due to health or safety concerns?

Even with such a small percentage reported, there were 537 abortions in Canada after 21 weeks gestation.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...erm-abortions/

Article is from 2012. I know most people here don't think 537 isn't that many, but to me it is a huge problem. Apparently most Canadians agree.

From the same article.

According to a June 2012 survey commissioned by Postmedia News and Global TV, 60% of Canadians would like to see abortion restricted to the first and second trimester. In 2011, Abacus Data polls found that 60% of Canadians believed that the life of the unborn should be protected at some point during the pregnancy. Similarly, a 2011 poll by Environics asked participants when they thought abortion should be illegal and 77% answered, “in the last three months” of pregnancy.

also...

Canada is the only country in the Western world with no legal protection for pre-born children. This puts us in the company of only two other countries worldwide: North Korea and China.

Nice to know what company we're in.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by East Coast Flame

The definition of life is not a scientific objective, it is an ideological and philosophical one. This "study" has no scientific basis, and it is a complete sham to pretend otherwise. It is completely naive to believe that this is just a "study" and nothing more. It is a foot in the door to re-open the debate.

Considering how rare late-term abortions are in this country, and that there are circumstances where late-term abortions are necessary, I am against making them illegal.

Every single other country in the world except 2 that don't like human rights at all have come to some sort of law as to when abortion should still be allowed.

If the study is anything more than that then I agree it is a sham, but it is concerning that people here think late-term abortions should be legal without any kind of medical reason when many fetus' have survived after 21 weeks.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Azure

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...erm-abortions/

Article is from 2012. I know most people here don't think 537 isn't that many, but to me it is a huge problem. Apparently most Canadians agree.

From the same article.



also...



Nice to know what company we're in.

So it seems you are against 3rd term abortions, but not abortions in the first 2 terms. If I am wrong then please let me know.

I am pro-choice.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

So it seems you are against 3rd term abortions, but not abortions in the first 2 terms. If I am wrong then please let me know.

I am pro-choice.

I am against late-term abortions, yes. As for the rest of it I do agree that it is a women's right issue, even if I would never personally agree with an abortion. Then again it would never be my choice so that point is moot.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

Mostly because a fetus can at times survive if born after the 21st week. Late-term is anything over 20 weeks from the definitions I could find.

But you're not explaining why you want it illegal.

[etherealgirl]

Originally Posted by mariners_fever

Have you even read the rules of Parliament? Any MP can bring forth a motion with or without the PM's consent to maintain the principles of local representation.

People here so easily forget the rules of Westminster style Parliaments because it doesn't get practiced the way it does in Britain. In Britain, this would just be another day in the house where backbench MPs lob attacks at their own leaders several times daily during QP and introduce their own motions quite regularly. It just doesn't happen here because our conventions and practices have ignored this almost completely.

Harper didn't want anything to do with this, and he voted no. Don't ignorantly blame Harper because he's your favourite whipping boy, how about you find out how your MP voted as YOUR representative and hold them accountable instead?

It's funny how people in general lament not having enough emphasis on the local MP in politics, then when a true free vote happens, they try to blame the head of government who had nothing to do with it.

The most annoying thing through watching this, even though I don't support it, has been peoples complete ignorance over how the system works and relying on their old fallback of thinking Harper directly controls everything. Go read the rules, peel away the layers of the onion, and find out how it really works.

/rant

Wow. Are you this condescending to everyone? I'm not sure that was even worth a reply, but I assure you:

1) I'm well aware of how a private member's bill works.

2) Absolutely Harper had "something to do with it". I'm not sure to what degree, obviously - it could be anywhere between spearheading it and building it into his strategic plan because he needed to just deal with Woodworth. If the latter, it's a bit exceptional as the Conservative party is not exactly a hotbed of independent thought. But the fact remains that this bill allowed Harper to appease the religious right by claiming his party is truly in their court values-wise, while continuing not to legislate on abortion. It's worked out brilliantly, really.

3) Thank you for assuming I don't know my MP's name. I have the misfortune of living in Jason Kenney's riding, but unfortunately he's only my third favourite "whipping boy" after Harper and Rob Anders. But as I'm sure you must be aware, the chances of him understanding my side on this one are about as strong as a 40-something male virgin thinking he should be involved in a debate about my uterus. Oh, hang on...

I'd rather whip Rona Ambrose, frankly.

[Azure]

So Harper has something to do with the bill he voted against? Okay.