Tory MPs divided as fetal-rights motion defeated in Commons

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by 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.

Completely being the devil's advocate here (sorry Devil's Advocate).

What if that survey said there were 40,000 assaults in Canada, with only 25-30 resulting in death? Would you then claim that legislation against violence was "a solution for a problem that doesn't exist?"

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by 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.

Of course, you are equally assuming that women making the decision to have a 'late term abortion' are making an informed decision based on upon 'incurable health problems'.

Unfortunately, we neither have data to support that viewpoint. Although it is one I share, there just isnt the data.

Where we diverge, is that I don't see a problem in codifying a point where it is required to have formal medical approval for an abortion at some point during a fetus' existence. To give them some formal recognition of rights, even if this is the general practise. I think it's a very balanced and modern position to recognize it in law.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Azure

Nice to know what company we're in.

Yeah, except that we've sorta proven that we're up to the responsibility of handling that power like grown ups.

537 late term abortions is disturbing, there's no getting around it. In the case of China, however, the government could come in and abort a 9-month gestated fetus if it was discovered you had more than 1 child. Now, I don't read the paper EVERY day, but it seems like of the 537 late term abortions in this country, not a single goddamn one of them was the result of government intervention to abort-rape a fetus.

The people who get late term abortions should probably be mandated some psychiatric care, but if we're being honest, if you're stupid/thoughtless/devoid of empathy to the point that you'd actually undertake a late term abortion, we don't need you raising kids.

[Azure]

It is a complicated issue anyway you look at it, but I find it a bit disheartening that whenever the question comes up about possibly protecting the unborn at the stage of where they could possibly survive as a 'human being' we're met with the 'we have better things to do' or 'its not a big deal' responses. It is a big deal, and we NEED to be concerned about this.

One article says 537 abortions after 21 weeks, and opendoor is claiming 25-30 without linking his source, so who knows what the actual numbers are but the FACT is the law allows an abortion for any freakin' reason at all right up to the day of birth. It is mind-boggling that Canada has a law like that in the first place, and even more mind-boggling that people actually think that isn't a problem.

Although 100% morally opposed to the idea of aborting a baby at any time during the pregnancy, I do submit to the idea that it isn't my decision to make, but I do not at ALL agree with the idea that it should be legal to abort a baby at 8-1/2 months for any reason outside of serious medical problems.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Azure

It is a complicated issue anyway you look at it, but I find it a bit disheartening that whenever the question comes up about possibly protecting the unborn at the stage of where they could possibly survive as a 'human being' we're met with the 'we have better things to do' or 'its not a big deal' responses. It is a big deal, and we NEED to be concerned about this.

One article says 537 abortions after 21 weeks, and opendoor is claiming 25-30 without linking his source, so who knows what the actual numbers are but the FACT is the law allows an abortion for any freakin' reason at all right up to the day of birth. It is mind-boggling that Canada has a law like that in the first place, and even more mind-boggling that people actually think that isn't a problem.

Although 100% morally opposed to the idea of aborting a baby at any time during the pregnancy, I do submit to the idea that it isn't my decision to make, but I do not at ALL agree with the idea that it should be legal to abort a baby at 8-1/2 months for any reason outside of serious medical problems.

They're probably the same numbers. The 25-30 is based on the 3rd trimester (6-9 months) while the 537 is based on 20 weeks which is the middle of the 2nd trimester.

Again though, unless someone can come up with any examples of late term abortions done for non health reasons, a law just seems pointless when the medical community has done a good job of handling the issue itself. Laws sometimes complicate matters and people might want to be careful what they wish for. Many countries (especially in Europe) that have laws governing late term abortions allow them for things like poverty while in Canada it's in the hands of medical professionals, so a non health related late term abortion is exceedingly unlikely.

[Azure]

Well, after 21 weeks there is a chance that a fetus can be viable, so that means there are over 500 abortions where the fetus could survive. How many are for health reasons? I have no idea, and I doubt that data is available.

I'm also not sure what you mean with the medical community handling it. Are you saying a doctor has the right to refuse an abortion at 8-1/2 months if the baby is healthy, because that is not how I understand the actual law.

I didn't realize an abortion could be refused for any reason if the mother asked for it.

[GGG]

Instead of late term abortions there should just be late term c-sections. If the fetus is viable then let it be born and given up for adoption. If it can live without a mother than i dont believe the mother should have a right to terminate it.

This approach would ensure a women had the rightto do what she wants with her body and give as many rights to the fetus as possible.

Whether or not it happens having it legal to kill a baby in the process of labour is wrong.

[pepper24]

Scumbag Rona....

[GGG]

Originally Posted by pepper24

Scumbag Rona....

Thats pretty misleading, she supported a bill which would study when a fetus should be given rights. A study that was essentially recomended by the supreme court when in struck down the abortion law. Laws which every country in the worls save 3 have.

It is not anti women to study this.

[Senator Clay Davis]

While its true its not necessarily anti-women to study this...its also pretty naive to believe it will stop at this when you consider most conservatives and their supports want to restrict abortion access. The ones who voted against this are just the ones smart enough to know opening this debate is political suicide.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by The Goon

Rona Ambrose says she voted in favour of the motion as she was worried about "sex selection abortion".

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/p...motion-ambrose

Because THAT happens ALL THE TIME in this country. I played hockey with a bunch of guys who were all only children because their moms found out they would've been chicks 18 months earlier and pulled the chute. We've all been there, right? It's like knowing someone with green eyes.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Completely being the devil's advocate here (sorry Devil's Advocate).

What if that survey said there were 40,000 assaults in Canada, with only 25-30 resulting in death? Would you then claim that legislation against violence was "a solution for a problem that doesn't exist?"

Yes. 25-30 deaths out of 40,000 is a 0.00075% rate of fatality. It's the statistical anomaly accounted for in every single poll that appears on the news, except it might be smaller than that. In the greater context of the nation, 30 deaths divided by 37 million people means 0.00000081 percent of the population died in a year as a result of assaults.

It's a complete non-issue. And while I would never want this to happen to my girlfriend or anyone I knew, I'm completely okay with people who don't want kids not bringing kids into the world. It's not like it's a mystery that unwanted kids are a bad thing for everyone involved (the kid included).

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

While its true its not necessarily anti-women to study this...its also pretty naive to believe it will stop at this when you consider most conservatives and their supports want to restrict abortion access. The ones who voted against this are just the ones smart enough to know opening this debate is political suicide.

Doesn't matter what YOU think it is. The poster is an outright lie. She did not at all vote to criminalize abortion.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Yes. 25-30 deaths out of 40,000 is a 0.00075% rate of fatality. It's the statistical anomaly accounted for in every single poll that appears on the news, except it might be smaller than that. In the greater context of the nation, 30 deaths divided by 37 million people means 0.00000081 percent of the population died in a year as a result of assaults.

It's a complete non-issue. And while I would never want this to happen to my girlfriend or anyone I knew, I'm completely okay with people who don't want kids not bringing kids into the world. It's not like it's a mystery that unwanted kids are a bad thing for everyone involved (the kid included).

They have 20 weeks to decide whether or not they want to bring a kid into the world. Don't act as if anyone here wants to take that right away from the mother.

All we're saying is that there are 500+(not 20) cases each year of abortion after 20 weeks, and unless they are done for medical reasons they should be illegal.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Azure

They have 20 weeks to decide whether or not they want to bring a kid into the world. Don't act as if anyone here wants to take that right away from the mother.

All we're saying is that there are 500+(not 20) cases each year of abortion after 20 weeks, and unless they are done for medical reasons they should be illegal.

I'm not actually in favor of late term abortions (unless medically necessary). Hell, I'm really not in favor of abortion as a concept; I do think adoption is the right solution if you don't want the kid.

I said this in an earlier post: If you have someone, a mother, who is so a) clueless b) thoughtless c) emotionally stunted that they would abort a late term fetus just for poops and giggles, why would you want that person raising a kid? That kid is gonna rob someone at an ATM when he's 15 and spend the next 40 years in and out of the custody of the state.

People who get late term abortions without medical reasons should probably be sterilized, but that's another issue. There's a whole other set of problems beyond the legality and fetus rights at that point; it needs to be uncovered why these people are broken.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by GGG

Thats pretty misleading, she supported a bill which would study when a fetus should be given rights. A study that was essentially recomended by the supreme court when in struck down the abortion law. Laws which every country in the worls save 3 have.

It is not anti women to study this.

It doesn't require a study. It requires someone, say the PM with the majority, to go 'Look. Abortion isn't great. But it is a necessary evil; look at the places with restrictive/illegal abortion policies, and tell me which of them you'd like to live in. The answer is none of them. So here's the deal. No abortions after the 2nd trimester. If you don't want the kid, we have institutions in place to help find the baby a good home. But a late-term abortion is probably going to be VERY hard for you to come back from, and you may never be the same person. So please, make the decision early, or let us help a loving family have a child".

It seems like a pipe dream that anyone would ever be that reasonable, however.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Yes. 25-30 deaths out of 40,000 is a 0.00075% rate of fatality. It's the statistical anomaly accounted for in every single poll that appears on the news, except it might be smaller than that. In the greater context of the nation, 30 deaths divided by 37 million people means 0.00000081 percent of the population died in a year as a result of assaults.

It's a complete non-issue. And while I would never want this to happen to my girlfriend or anyone I knew, I'm completely okay with people who don't want kids not bringing kids into the world. It's not like it's a mystery that unwanted kids are a bad thing for everyone involved (the kid included).

So, if the fatalities are statistically insignificant, that makes it ok?

As for unwanted children, I know for a fact that there are much more than 30 families out there that are desperate to adopt. Desperate.

But to take your logic to its absurd conclusion, there are a statistically "insignificant" number of infant murders committed by their mothers. There were an estimated 1700 cases in the states in 2011, out of 300 million people, that is statistically insignificant. Clearly these children are unwanted. I guess using your logic this is a complete non-issue?

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by pepper24

Scumbag Rona....

Liar pepper24

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Knalus

So, if the fatalities are statistically insignificant, that makes it ok?

As for unwanted children, I know for a fact that there are much more than 30 families out there that are desperate to adopt. Desperate.

But to take your logic to its absurd conclusion, there are a statistically "insignificant" number of infant murders committed by their mothers. There were an estimated 1700 cases in the states in 2011, out of 300 million people, that is statistically insignificant. Clearly these children are unwanted. I guess using your logic this is a complete non-issue?

There are many more people people who die as a result of high speed traffic collisions. We don't mandate that everyone drive 60. 30 cases out of 40,000 yes, is not a real issue. Because it is the less than 1 in 10,000 occurrence.

I know there are more than 30 families desperate to adopt. My point is that anyone stupid enough to undertake an elective late term abortion is not going to be thinking about that as an option. Which is why it makes no sense to frame this as a legal issue. This is an issue that requires us to educate people about responsible decision making and doing the grown up thing. In the first two trimesters it may include abortion. After that, they should really explore another avenue if they don't want to be a parent.

So again, the issue is not a legal one. It's a psychological one that needs addressing. 1700 people did this in the states, making it illegal isn't going to prevent that. Figuring out what caused them to view it as a viable option an dealing with that is going to get rid of late term non medical abortions. But that's way more time consuming than quoting the bible and saying life begins when you get hard, so it's probably not happening.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well, after 21 weeks there is a chance that a fetus can be viable, so that means there are over 500 abortions where the fetus could survive. How many are for health reasons? I have no idea, and I doubt that data is available.

I'm also not sure what you mean with the medical community handling it. Are you saying a doctor has the right to refuse an abortion at 8-1/2 months if the baby is healthy, because that is not how I understand the actual law.

I didn't realize an abortion could be refused for any reason if the mother asked for it.

Yes. Doctors aren't compelled to perform abortions of any kind, let alone one ones that far along. I defy you to find evidence of a hospital or clinic in Canada that performs ones that late in the term for non medical reasons. Until you can, all this talk about aborting fetuses 2 weeks from birth is really just a strawman argument.

But if you want to talk hypotheticals, let's say Canada passes a law banning abortions after 20 weeks unless they're medically necessary. Well who determines what's necessary? What if a women is 25 weeks along and tests reveal that there's a 50% or so chance the baby won't survive and a 50% or so chance that the mother will be rendered infertile if she carries it to term? Is an abortion in that case medically necessary? Or what if you shift the percentages around, at what point is something necessary and at what point is it not? Under the current system that decision is in the hands of the parents along with their doctors; who would make that decision if the laws were changed?