Tory MPs divided as fetal-rights motion defeated in Commons

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

You guys are trivializing a very serious topic.

Plan C, of course, is hoping that it was legitimate rape

paging Weiser Wonder......

[Knut]

http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/PolicyPDF/PD88-06.pdf

Here is the Official Canadian Medical Association's view on the subject. I feel it is best to leave this discussion out of parliament and put it into a self-regulating health profession. It makes the decision based on health and not on Religion. personal views nor on what 320ish parliament members cast their vote for.

OF NOTE: is that the Canadian Medical Associations definition of a Viable Fetus is 20 weeks.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

You know a single girl? I know many families, probably more than 10 that were forced together because of an unplanned child and who have the worst child rearing abilities and home environment.

Your example is just as bad mine, extrapolating from limited personal experience to the entire population is very dangerous.

My statement was in reference to the Senator's statement... It was generally her first resort.

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Abortion is the last resort for most women. If they have unprotected sex and are worried about pregnancy, they usually go for the Plan B every time, not to the abortion clinic.

Frankly she wasn't really the sharpest pencil in the pack and she was a bit on the lazy side... particularly when it came to safe sex.
I wasn't saying that there are a lot of women out there that do this on a regular basis... I was just making the point that there are some who do this (and some guys are just as guilty as some women) on a fairly regular basis. I have absolutely zero respect for this woman.

[etherealgirl]

Originally Posted by mariners_fever

For someone who says it isn't black and white, you sure think it's black and white that this vote was all Harper's sinister evil agenda with no hard facts that he had anything to do with the motion being brought forward by a private member. The only fact you have is that he voted no.

And you're right, it isn't black and white, but making assumption with no fact is useless to the debate entirely. I mean, why would we ever let the facts get in the way of some great emotions?

Oh, relax and sit down, you're the one who seems to be getting emotional (thanks for that, btw). The private member is a Conservative in a party that cares very much for staying on message. Those are also facts. It's not a stretch to wonder or assume about involvement.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by etherealgirl

Oh, relax and sit down, you're the one who seems to be getting emotional (thanks for that, btw). The private member is a Conservative in a party that cares very much for staying on message. Those are also facts. It's not a stretch to wonder or assume about involvement.

You know what they say about people who assume.

[etherealgirl]

Originally Posted by Rerun

You know what they say about people who assume.

Sure. Let's ignore the issue completely and trade lame insults. I'll go second and come up with a Yo Momma joke.

[mariners_fever]

Originally Posted by etherealgirl

Oh, relax and sit down, you're the one who seems to be getting emotional (thanks for that, btw). The private member is a Conservative in a party that cares very much for staying on message. Those are also facts. It's not a stretch to wonder or assume about involvement.

It's tough for you to label someone as emotional when all I've done is presented facts and watched you get your back up and premised arguments based on what you've admitted to be an assumption.

I'm calmly sitting here and pointing out your contradictions.

I've learned one thing in debate over the years, it's that one who debates focussing on facts is most often the one who is least emotional about it. It's silly for us to gauge who the emotional one is over a message board for it is impossible to tell, but I feel that your labelling me as 'emotional' is just a smokescreen around the cold, hard facts I've presented that you're using to reinforce assumptions.

[mariners_fever]

Originally Posted by etherealgirl

Sure. Let's ignore the issue completely and trade lame insults. I'll go second and come up with a Yo Momma joke.

I'm not sure that pointing out that your point is based completely on an unproven assumption is ignoring the issue. It seems to me like a reminder to stick to the issue and the facts, not assumptions without evidence.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by etherealgirl

Sure. Let's ignore the issue completely and trade lame insults. I'll go second and come up with a Yo Momma joke.

Unfortunately you are the one who is failing to address the facts. You are making "assumptions" based on a "feeling" I guess. ... its certainly not based on any "facts" about Mr. Harper. Typical left wing Liberal/NDP fear mongering. Change the tune already ok? Its really getting old and nobody believes it.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by etherealgirl

Sure. Let's ignore the issue completely and trade lame insults. I'll go second and come up with a Yo Momma joke.

The problem is assumptions add up and rely on theory. With enough assumptions, anything theoretically possible can be said it must happen if we constrain the situation enough. I could say that Harper is controlling the NDP if we assume Harper controlled Layton, told him to focus on Quebec, and wanted the BQ out of the way.

If there's tangible foundation and supporting evidence behind something, then we start to get inside the region of realistic situations. But the constant application of this fuzzy connection of Harper using Woodworth to put something forward without solid evidence around it is where people kind of feel that you get to conspiracy theory territory.

[etherealgirl]

Originally Posted by Hesla

http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/PolicyPDF/PD88-06.pdf

Here is the Official Canadian Medical Association's view on the subject. I feel it is best to leave this discussion out of parliament and put it into a self-regulating health profession. It makes the decision based on health and not on Religion. personal views nor on what 320ish parliament members cast their vote for.

OF NOTE: is that the Canadian Medical Associations definition of a Viable Fetus is 20 weeks.

I agree. I think you'd be extremely challenged in Canada to find a doctor who would perform a late-term elective abortion. These days the NICU sees 23 weekers around 500g.

[nik-]

Guns .... in our streets.

[etherealgirl]

Originally Posted by mariners_fever

It's tough for you to label someone as emotional when all I've done is presented facts and watched you get your back up and premised arguments based on what you've admitted to be an assumption.

I'm calmly sitting here and pointing out your contradictions.

I've learned one thing in debate over the years, it's that one who debates focussing on facts is most often the one who is least emotional about it. It's silly for us to gauge who the emotional one is over a message board for it is impossible to tell, but I feel that your labelling me as 'emotional' is just a smokescreen around the cold, hard facts I've presented that you're using to reinforce assumptions.

So to get this straight, you're against assumptions but assume I am getting my back up?

Anyway, again, I have already said it's my assumption. I'm totally okay with that. We all live in and consider the world making reasonable assumptions, and I am not basing any life or death decisions on the degree to which Harper was or was not involved with Woodworth. Maybe not at all - but it all worked out for him. The end result is the same.

So I'll amend my original post to say "Absolutely, I believe he was involved..." etc. There's no discussion or debate if only facts are involved. Those are statements.

ETA: I'm not going to address everyone who decided to hop on and get a punch in, sorry.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Without getting into whether its justice or not, you then must also be in favor of allocating the necessary government resources for that child to have a good upbringing yes? Or is it the usual conservative line of "You better have that damn child....but once its born your on your own?"

Of course. Taking care of the kid is justice too.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by etherealgirl

I agree. I think you'd be extremely challenged in Canada to find a doctor who would perform a late-term elective abortion. These days the NICU sees 23 weekers around 500g.

Just playing devils advocate here but are you saying that the doctors are exercising conscience rights?

Since late term abortions are legal shouldn't doctors be forced to perform them or lose their jobs?

[etherealgirl]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Just playing devils advocate here but are you saying that the doctors are exercising conscience rights?

Since late term abortions are legal shouldn't doctors be forced to perform them or lose their jobs?

If you're a doctor who chooses to work in abortion clinics, you accept what that job entails, and you perform your job as well as you can in accordance with the law, and in this case, with the CMA guidelines regarding abortion, and the practices and ethics you have committed to upholding in the role of physician. So no, you shouldn't be able to pick and choose who benefits from your services, just like a JP shouldn't be able to choose who they will conduct a marriage ceremony for.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by etherealgirl

If you're a doctor who chooses to work in abortion clinics, you accept what that job entails, and you perform your job as well as you can in accordance with the law, and in this case, with the CMA guidelines regarding abortion, and the practices and ethics you have committed to upholding in the role of physician. So no, you shouldn't be able to pick and choose who benefits from your services, just like a JP shouldn't be able to choose who they will conduct a marriage ceremony for.

So you are saying that a doctor should have no choice but to perform an abortion up until the moment of the child being born right?

Does this only apply to doctors working in abortion clinics or does it also apply to doctors working in hospitals?

[etherealgirl]

Originally Posted by Jacks

So you are saying that a doctor should have no choice but to perform an abortion up until the moment of the child being born right?

Does this only apply to doctors working in abortion clinics or does it also apply to doctors working in hospitals?

I assume you're being facetious? Read the CMA policy, which I was agreeing with. We're talking about pre-viability fetuses. And again, doctors who perform elective (not medically necessary) abortions typically work in an abortion clinic. Do you believe any doctors in Canada are being forced to abort viable babies, thus making "conscience rights" an actual issue?

Like most people, you likely see that this is a pretty damn complex and nuanced issue. I'm comfortable leaving this to those with expertise and intimate knowledge of the situation who are bound by a code of ethics - physicians - and the women who are involved.

Also, please consider your first assertion in light of the fact that I have given birth to two preemies who mean more to me than life itself.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by etherealgirl

I assume you're being facetious? Read the CMA policy, which I was agreeing with. We're talking about pre-viability fetuses.

CMA policy isn't the law. Abortion is legal up until the moment that a baby completely leaves it's mothers body. We are not talking about "pre-viability" fetuses.

And again, doctors who perform elective (not medically necessary) abortions typically work in an abortion clinic. Do you believe any doctors in Canada are being forced to abort viable babies, thus making "conscience rights" an actual issue?

I never said that they were being forced. If however they are refusing to provide medical services because they object to it then I don't really see the difference between this and conscience rights.

Like most people, you likely see that this is a pretty damn complex and nuanced issue. I'm comfortable leaving this to those with expertise and intimate knowledge of the situation who are bound by a code of ethics - physicians - and the women who are involved.

Also, please consider your first assertion in light of the fact that I have given birth to two preemies who mean more to me than life itself.

As I said before, I don't really care either way. I just find it interesting how people are justifying their position on the issue and how people who object to having any restriction at all on abortion are held in contempt. I'll quit asking uncomfortable questions now.

[opendoor]

Just to put this issue in context, in 2004 (the most comprehensive numbers I could find quickly) there were slightly under 40,000 abortions in Canada where the gestational age was recorded. Among those, fewer than 25-30 were in the 3rd trimester. Until someone can point to some cases of late term abortions occurring in Canada for reasons other than health, I see this as a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.

It's not that uncommon for tests done in the 2nd trimester to reveal incurable health problems or to bring to light risks of infertility or death to the mother if the pregnancy carried to term. The vast majority of these women having "late term abortions" are probably going through the hardest period of their lives; trivializing their plight by characterizing these procedures as being ones of convenience is really ignoring how difficult this decision is for parents to be. Further complicating the matter through legislation without clear evidence of a problem makes no sense to me. If there are scores of women unnecessarily getting late term abortions then I'd be inclined to reconsider my opinion, but nothing I've ever seen suggests that to be the case.