Tory MPs divided as fetal-rights motion defeated in Commons

[nik-]

Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan

So just when you were finished rejoicing at the death of M-312, another Conservative MP is introducing another Private Members bill related to abortion.

Bill M-408.

Tough to find any info on it right now, more info (and a link) when I find one.

Edit: Here's a link.

Ugh, is it ok to be "pro-choice" and still think that deciding sex of the baby as the reason to abort is pretty lame?

I'm not sure where I stand on that one. I guess it's a fine line between sex as a reason and major disabilities as a reason. Man, this topic sucks.

[vanisleflamesfan]

Originally Posted by nik-

Ugh, is it ok to be "pro-choice" and still think that deciding sex of the baby as the reason to abort is pretty lame?

I'm not sure where I stand on that one. I guess it's a fine line between sex as a reason and major disabilities as a reason. Man, this topic sucks.

The problem with this type of legislation is that it usually requires the woman to go before some sort of a committee in order to plead her case as to why she wants an abortion. If the committee decides that she wants it because of sex selection, well... no abortion.

I don't think you have to look to hard to see the potential problems inherent with such a system.

Sex selective abortion is a tough area but this is as slippery a slope as it gets.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by nik-

Ugh, is it ok to be "pro-choice" and still think that deciding sex of the baby as the reason to abort is pretty lame?

I'm not sure where I stand on that one. I guess it's a fine line between sex as a reason and major disabilities as a reason. Man, this topic sucks.

Yeah - I tend to agree with this as well. I agree with the principle of abortion, it is just unfortunate that with some of the positives, most notably the freedom of choice, come the negatives, the freedom of choice to be a complete jackass, as are the people who abort a child because it is of a certain gender. Maybe I don't appreciate other's cultures as I should but I think that there is something ethically wrong with aborting a child because they are female.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by nik-

Ugh, is it ok to be "pro-choice" and still think that deciding sex of the baby as the reason to abort is pretty lame?

I'm not sure where I stand on that one. I guess it's a fine line between sex as a reason and major disabilities as a reason. Man, this topic sucks.

maybe better than having a girl being born to parents who really wanted a boy? in many cultures just being female is hard enough without extra scorn from your parents because your gender is "wrong"

i still take the purely rational standpoint in the abortion debate. there are 7 billion humans on this planet, we really don't need any more. i don't think there should be any restrictions on abortion unless the child is close enough to survive on it's own outside the womb (Azure's point)

[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

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan

So just when you were finished rejoicing at the death of M-312, another Conservative MP is introducing another Private Members bill related to abortion.

Bill M-408.

Tough to find any info on it right now, more info (and a link) when I find one.

Edit: Here's a link.

Whoa there... this is not at all like the last private members abortion bill. Your anti-conservative agenda is warping your vision.

M-408 "That the House condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination."

I am totally in favour of parliament condemning this practice!!!! How can anyone not be in favour this motion?

[MarchHare]

What does it even mean when the House condemns something? Do they release a strongly-worded statement against the practice and then leave it at that? No changes to any laws or anything? If that's all it is, what's the point?

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan

So just when you were finished rejoicing at the death of M-312, another Conservative MP is introducing another Private Members bill related to abortion.

Bill M-408.

Tough to find any info on it right now, more info (and a link) when I find one.

Edit: Here's a link.

I think this is a bit different though - it's just a motion that the government condemn the practice of sex selection, not a motion to do anything to restrict abortions. Condemning practices that value one sex over the other is fine by me, though maybe it could have been extended beyond just abortions based on sex selection.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

What does it even mean when the House condemns something? Do they release a strongly-worded statement against the practice and then leave it at that? No changes to any laws or anything? If that's all it is, what's the point?

I guess the point is letting the Canadian public know where parliament stands on an issue... particularly when going the next step and introducing a law supporting you condemnation opens up a whole can of worms.
Parliament makes condemnations all the time... ie condemning the conduct of other countries, etc.

One way I suppose they could do it, without getting into the whole abortion law thing, would be to make it illegal to reveal the child's sex until the 3rd trimester at which time it would be almost impossible to get an abortion without valid medical reasons.

[Rerun]

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

... and its a miraculous save by Rona Ambrose!!!! < crowd goes wild with cheers!! >

[mariners_fever]

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.

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?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Why are they even bringing any of this nonsense up? Even if its not to set a bill in motion, what does all of this achieve? More importantly, is this even important to Canadians? I can think of at least 20 more issues we should be focusing on before this one. This all seems like a silly, pointless waste of time, and the only net benefit for Conservatives is maybe shoring up a base who would vote for them regardless of this. Just all seems so pointless to me.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by nik-

Ugh, is it ok to be "pro-choice" and still think that deciding sex of the baby as the reason to abort is pretty lame?

I'm not sure where I stand on that one. I guess it's a fine line between sex as a reason and major disabilities as a reason. Man, this topic sucks.

I'm with you. I'm pro-choice for many reasons, but I do think there needs to be more respect for pregnancy and fetuses (feti?) and the whole process and such. Like abortion shouldn't just be used as a form of birth control. When a woman has had three or four, there is probably a bigger problem, and she definitely doesn't respect life or her body. I mean, it's not that hard to use birth control.

But I can't argue against it, because there are so many reasons it's needed, it is the woman's body at the end of the day, and any small change in policy would probably be a HUGE slippery slope that would put us back very quickly. We definitely don't need to be anywhere near what is going on in the States right now.

But I do know how you feel. :/ I guess what keeps me sane is I know what I'd do in my decision (not just if I was a woman, which obviously means little, but if it was my girlfriend or my daughter, etc.) and I just try to be the best person I can be. And I'll stay out of other people's decisions.

[MarchHare]

Like abortion shouldn't just be used as a form of birth control.

What do you mean by that? Are you saying you only support abortions in cases where the health of the mother is at risk, then?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

What do you mean by that? Are you saying you only support abortions in cases where the health of the mother is at risk, then?

I know a lot of people who feel like this but realize that the issue is a lot more complicated.

Like Daradon said, if you create a law that outlaws abortion except in medical emergencies, you are starting down a slippery slope where women's rights are at risk.

On another point, I find it highly annoying when people call this 'debate' a great waste of time. We're talking about the potential life of a human being. Its not a waste of time.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

What do you mean by that? Are you saying you only support abortions in cases where the health of the mother is at risk, then?

I think he's saying abortion is a pretty crappy way to practice birth control. I'm pro-choice but I have no problem with that statement. It is a crappy form of birth control and I have absolutely no respect for women who repeatedly do it.

[Jacks]

Just for the record, I couldn't care less about abortion one way or the other.

It is amusing however how people can justify their positions. On one hand people can justify killing the fetus at any time before it fully leaves a womans body. This is justified as being the "woman's right to choose". These same people are horrified that the baby would be aborted based on it's gender or any physical defects. So it's okay to kill it if you just don't want the kid and don't have a reason but it's terrible if you don't want the child because it's a girl. Talk about twisting yourself in pretzels.

Obviously I'm not talking about cases where there are medical complications, rape, etc.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Azure

I know a lot of people who feel like this but realize that the issue is a lot more complicated.

Like Daradon said, if you create a law that outlaws abortion except in medical emergencies, you are starting down a slippery slope where women's rights are at risk.

On another point, I find it highly annoying when people call this 'debate' a great waste of time. We're talking about the potential life of a human being. Its not a waste of time.

Yes it is a waste of time. When there are issues, much bigger and more important issues, that affect actual, living, breathing human beings, you know, me and you, then this is indeed a waste of time. Health care has issues in Canada, Calgary and Alberta as a whole needs massive injection of infrastructure money, but here we are talking about abortion? Yeah no, its a distraction and a waste of time, period.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Just for the record, I couldn't care less about abortion one way or the other.

It is amusing however how people can justify their positions. On one hand people can justify killing the fetus at any time before it fully leaves a womans body. This is justified as being the "woman's right to choose". These same people are horrified that the baby would be aborted based on it's gender or any physical defects. So it's okay to kill it if you just don't want the kid and don't have a reason but it's terrible if you don't want the child because it's a girl. Talk about twisting yourself in pretzels.

Obviously I'm not talking about cases where there are medical complications, rape, etc.

I noticed this too. Pretty crazy position to take. If you agree with abortion, why does it matter if someone uses it as a form of birth control, or as a way to keep from having a 'girl' if they want a 'boy.'

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Just for the record, I couldn't care less about abortion one way or the other.

It is amusing however how people can justify their positions. On one hand people can justify killing the fetus at any time before it fully leaves a womans body. This is justified as being the "woman's right to choose". These same people are horrified that the baby would be aborted based on it's gender or any physical defects. So it's okay to kill it if you just don't want the kid and don't have a reason but it's terrible if you don't want the child because it's a girl. Talk about twisting yourself in pretzels.

Obviously I'm not talking about cases where there are medical complications, rape, etc.

Killing is always a complicated subject that is never black and white.