Tory MPs divided as fetal-rights motion defeated in Commons

[East Coast Flame]

Azure, do you agree that late-term abortions should be allowed in certain circumstances (ie. the mothers health is in jeopardy, etc)?

Going off the assumption that you do think these certain circumstances should be allowed, then who makes the decision where the mother is allowed an abortion? Is there going to be a committee to discuss and vote on every situation?

My main issue with outlawing late-term abortions is taking the choice away from the Woman and into the hands of someone else.

[Azure]

Again, I said in 'emergency' situations. That means you need a legitimate medical reason, i.e. the mothers life being in danger. If that is the case, then the mother should still have the choice. Not sure why that should even change.

Its really not that complicated. After 21 weeks the fetus can be viable. Therefore any abortion after 21 weeks should require a medical reason, such as a the mom's life being in danger. If that is the case, the mother should be able to decide whether she keeps it or not.

But allowing any late term abortion up to the full 9 months without requiring ANY medical reason is a serious problem when a baby born at 8 months can be PERFECTLY healthy.

[Bertuzzied]

Why couldn't that MP bring up a real bill, like forced sterilization for the super poor?
We can build a better Canada, Together!

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Azure

Again, I said in 'emergency' situations. That means you need a legitimate medical reason, i.e. the mothers life being in danger. If that is the case, then the mother should still have the choice. Not sure why that should even change.

Its really not that complicated. After 21 weeks the fetus can be viable. Therefore any abortion after 21 weeks should require a medical reason, such as a the mom's life being in danger. If that is the case, the mother should be able to decide whether she keeps it or not.

But allowing any late term abortion up to the full 9 months without requiring ANY medical reason is a serious problem when a baby born at 8 months can be PERFECTLY healthy.

I think most canadians would agree with this reasoning.

It's the over the top hysterics that 'we can't even discuss something this primitive' that bothers me. That's what our parliament is for, and the fact we have absolutely zero rules is somewhat concerning.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I think most canadians would agree with this reasoning.

It's the over the top hysterics that 'we can't even discuss something this primitive' that bothers me. That's what our parliament is for, and the fact we have absolutely zero rules is somewhat concerning.

You can probably blame the extremists at both ends for that.

I just find it concerning that people actually believe it is morally 'right' to allow an abortion at 8-1/2 months without ANY medical reason. You're pretty much murdering a human being at that point.

[East Coast Flame]

Alight, what if there are serious medical consequences, but the mothers life is not in imminent danger? What then? Like I said, where is the line drawn? And who decides? What if one doctor believes the mothers life is in danger, but another doesn't?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Azure

But allowing any late term abortion up to the full 9 months without requiring ANY medical reason is a serious problem when a baby born at 8 months can be PERFECTLY healthy.

It's a bit OT, but that happens with these type of issues, what becomes of the child born to a mother and maybe father that doesn't want it?

Are there studies/stats for what happens to these children, do they get adopted/stuck orphanages?

[Rerun]

Here's a list of the Alberta MPs who voted yea.

[Azure]

Weird. None of those are from southern Alberta. And here I thought all the rednecks lived there.

[etherealgirl]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

It's a bit OT, but that happens with these type of issues, what becomes of the child born to a mother and maybe father that doesn't want it?

Are there studies/stats for what happens to these children, do they get adopted/stuck orphanages?

There are long waiting lists of prospective adoptive parents that would be elated to adopt a newborn. But very very few newborns available.

But yes, OT.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by etherealgirl

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

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.

You are so out to lunch with your conspiracy theory I'm just speechless...

[Azure]

Originally Posted by etherealgirl

There are long waiting lists of prospective adoptive parents that would be elated to adopt a newborn. But very very few newborns available.

But yes, OT.

Which is why most prospective adoptive parents go overseas, right?

[Ozy_Flame]

I agree with late term abortion, but only for health/emergency reasons that threaten the physical well being of the mother. It would have to be approved by medical staff first before anything.

If you're going to abort on conscience, that should be done absolutely no later than the second trimester, I agree.

[etherealgirl]

Originally Posted by Rerun

You are so out to lunch with your conspiracy theory I'm just speechless...

Politics isn't black and white, face value, and it's not an elaborate conspiracy theory either. I'm not sure how assuming that the leader of a party with a very firm grip on control who I imagine (personally) shares Woodworth's beliefs and also counts the religious right in his base is not at all involved in any capacity or happy with the end result is "out to lunch". It's not deserving of an eye-roll either.

[etherealgirl]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Lol! Not very fitting, if you know me.

[etherealgirl]

Originally Posted by Azure

Which is why most prospective adoptive parents go overseas, right?

Yes, if they have the money.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by etherealgirl

Politics isn't black and white, face value, and it's not an elaborate conspiracy theory either. I'm not sure how assuming that the leader of a party with a very firm grip on control who I imagine (personally) shares Woodworth's beliefs and also counts the religious right in his base is not at all involved in any capacity or happy with the end result is "out to lunch". It's not deserving of an eye-roll either.

and there is your down fall.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Azure

Weird. None of those are from southern Alberta. And here I thought all the rednecks lived there.

Maybe this is sarcasm that's going over my head, but I see Lethbridge and Medicine Hat both on the list.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by etherealgirl

Politics isn't black and white, face value, and it's not an elaborate conspiracy theory either. I'm not sure how assuming that the leader of a party with a very firm grip on control who I imagine (personally) shares Woodworth's beliefs and also counts the religious right in his base is not at all involved in any capacity or happy with the end result is "out to lunch". It's not deserving of an eye-roll either.

This is where your assertion starts to fall apart. It is potentially true that Harper does have the opinion that abortion is wrong - however at the same time so does roughly half of the population going from most statistics that I have read on the issue (a number that is admittedly decreasing). That being said it doesn't matter what his personal opinions are, he has been elected to represent a riding and those are the opinions that he should be purporting, at least in theory while doing so in a way that is congruent with the charter of rights and freedoms as well as other agreements and treaties that Canada has signed.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Maybe this is sarcasm that's going over my head, but I see Lethbridge and Medicine Hat both on the list.

Isn't Calgary southern Alberta also?