Read the subject line again please. Did you know that? Were you aware of the fact that in Canada it is legal for an abortion to take place any time during pregnancy? That includes right up until the time a birth is about to take place. If you weren’t aware of this fact you’re in good company. According to a poll done by Angus Reid fully 92% of Canadians were not aware that abortion is legal during the full nine months of gestation. NEWSWIRE STORY
For those wishing this story would just go away…well, it ain’t happening. This is probably one of the touchiest topics going, it’s definitely something to avoid as a topic for polite dinner conversation. But for many people this is more than just a topic of conversation, it is a crusade. While there’s no indication as to who paid for the poll, I suspect it might be Signal Hill, an advocacy group mentioned 3 times in the on-line version of the press release.
In looking at their website I’m struck by the reasonableness of tone and lack of inflammatory statements. Just one quick snippet:
IS SIGNAL HILL TRYING TO MAKE ABORTION ILLEGAL?
“Concentrating on the legality of the issue is not our position. We believe that when abortion is chosen it is because it is perceived as the least undesirable option available to the woman and her family. We believe that if a woman is fully informed of all of the options available to her, and of the physical and psychological dangers to her and to her preborn baby, abortion will rarely be chosen”.
That strikes me as pretty fair commentary. Those against criminalizing abortion call themselves ‘Pro-Choice’ and not ‘Pro-Abortion’ after all. I’m going to cut against the progressive grain here and pose a question. Is there any chance of reasonable accommodation from the Pro-Choice lobby? Would there be objections to Canada having a law which made abortion illegal during say... the last month of pregnancy?
I know some will make the point that in Canada abortions are almost never performed during the last month, excepting when the life of the mother is in danger. Assuming that to be true, what would be the harm in making it illegal, except in cases where the mother might die during child birth?
On a personal level I’m more inclined to the Pro-Choice argument, especially if it’s a question of extremes...a total ban versus having no law. But I do think at some point a fetus should have some rights, especially if the fetus is so far developed that he/she could live autonomous of the mother.
Comments are welcomed, I read them all. Feel free to pass this blog entry along via email or through a social network like FaceBook, just click on the ‘Share This’ icon below.
For those wishing this story would just go away…well, it ain’t happening. This is probably one of the touchiest topics going, it’s definitely something to avoid as a topic for polite dinner conversation. But for many people this is more than just a topic of conversation, it is a crusade. While there’s no indication as to who paid for the poll, I suspect it might be Signal Hill, an advocacy group mentioned 3 times in the on-line version of the press release.
In looking at their website I’m struck by the reasonableness of tone and lack of inflammatory statements. Just one quick snippet:
IS SIGNAL HILL TRYING TO MAKE ABORTION ILLEGAL?
“Concentrating on the legality of the issue is not our position. We believe that when abortion is chosen it is because it is perceived as the least undesirable option available to the woman and her family. We believe that if a woman is fully informed of all of the options available to her, and of the physical and psychological dangers to her and to her preborn baby, abortion will rarely be chosen”.
That strikes me as pretty fair commentary. Those against criminalizing abortion call themselves ‘Pro-Choice’ and not ‘Pro-Abortion’ after all. I’m going to cut against the progressive grain here and pose a question. Is there any chance of reasonable accommodation from the Pro-Choice lobby? Would there be objections to Canada having a law which made abortion illegal during say... the last month of pregnancy?
I know some will make the point that in Canada abortions are almost never performed during the last month, excepting when the life of the mother is in danger. Assuming that to be true, what would be the harm in making it illegal, except in cases where the mother might die during child birth?
On a personal level I’m more inclined to the Pro-Choice argument, especially if it’s a question of extremes...a total ban versus having no law. But I do think at some point a fetus should have some rights, especially if the fetus is so far developed that he/she could live autonomous of the mother.
Comments are welcomed, I read them all. Feel free to pass this blog entry along via email or through a social network like FaceBook, just click on the ‘Share This’ icon below.
Back to Canadian Soapbox Home
Posts
Seed Newsvine
24 comments:
Don't tell me that someone at ProgBlogs actually fell for that "right up to birth" BS. Here we go again.
The harm in making abortion illegal "just for the last month" or even just for the last day, is that (1) It isn't happening, so why legislate? and (2) this would only be a starting point for more restrictive laws, which the anti-choice lobby would pursue relentlessly.
Abortion doesn't happen in the last month, or the 2nd last. Only 1/2 of 1% of abortions happen after 24 weeks, and those are always for heath emergencies. So why have another useless law to prevent something that doesn't even happen?
We don't need legislation governing a procedure that's a private matter between patient and doctor. Doctors police themselves and have stringent guidelines set out by the CMA, they don't need any "helpful" intervention by the state. And it works: our abortion rate is lower than in the US where they have far more restrictive laws, and keeps going down every year. Without any regressive legislation.
I'm sure you mean well, but please, before you post, check your facts and your sources. When you regurgitate propaganda from anti-choice mouthpieces like "Signal Hill", (no matter how "fair" the commentary sounds, that's what it is -- propaganda) you're making yourself a party to a very un-progressive agenda.
Thanks for the link, JJ.
This is why the fetus fetishists keep at it. They can suck people in with their crap. The Signal Hill is a front for the anti-choice, aka forced-pregnancy gang.
What JJ said. Check the facts. Please.
Thanks for the link JJ, I did check out the 'smackdown' on Signal Hill. Sadly this is politics at it's worst (or best depending on your point of view).
Demonizing one's opponents does little to foster genuine constructive debate. Without a doubt there is a sizeable part of our population who are not happy with the status quo...no they are no where close to being a majority, but just because one holds a view that is not supported by 50% or more of the population doesn't diminish its legitimacy. If the majority viewpoint were in favour of slavery, would that make it right?
I realize that some will see any legislation as a wedge that could be later used to impose stiffer restrictions...and perhaps ultimately a total ban.
I've blogged on this before, and my own personal viewpoint is that once a fetus has gestated (sp?) to the point where it can survive autonomous of the mother...Should that fetus not have some rights?
If a mother fails to provide the neccessities of life to a newborn infant she will almost certainly face charges. The logic being that if she can't provide them, there are others (the state, adoptive parents) who can. If a fetus living inutero (sp? again) has developed to the point where it can survive outside of the womb, why not make the soon to be child available for adoption?
Its far too facile to just scream PROPOGANDA at anyone who is willing to listen to opposing viewpoints...and listening means trying to understand their point of view. I'd suggest you try it sometime, you may find out you don't have all the answers.
It's not for the state to decide. It's for the pregnant woman and her doctor, and her family if appropriate; not the government. Do you really want the government to decide for you how many children to have or when to begin having them? I sure don't. They can't even plan for a season's worth of snow removal! Would you like your wife or partner to have to live with a dead baby wasting inside her because the procedure to remove it pre-term is illegal (i.e. the government says NO)? What if the continuing the pregnancy itself would kill her - do you want the government to decide which life to spare, or would you rather you and your family decide that for yourselves?
Late-term abortion is rare and always done due to extreme health problems with the mother or fetus. It is always a tragedy and for the government to interfere in this very personal family matter is quite unconscionable to me. Since it is so rare (and if you think it's not, just try to find a doctor who will perform a second or third trimester abortion "just because" - they won't), endowing fetus' with rights is just not necessary, unless your goal is to incrementally erode women's reproductive liberties, which is very much the end goal of the anti-abortion movement.
"Its far too facile to just scream PROPOGANDA at anyone who is willing to listen to opposing viewpoints...and listening means trying to understand their point of view. I'd suggest you try it sometime, you may find out you don't have all the answers"
Okay, I see you don't get it.
I have been dealing with these people (anti-choicers such as Signal Hill) for far too long not to instantly know what they're up to when they put out misleading information like this "abortion til birth" BS.
But because I do know what they're about, "listening" to them (talk about how to curtail My Rights) is completely unacceptable and I can guarantee you it won't be happening anytime soon.
Propoganda? *snerk*
As JJ says, we feminazis have been dealing with these lying liars since forever. They are the propagandists. They lie. They say abortion causes breast cancer. Abortion causes insanity, depression, substance abuse, and infertility. Go check out Signal Hill's links. All the usual lying liar propagandists are there.
Oh, and here is a progressive who does get it.
As to what is the harm of criminalizing late abortions, one needs to consider how one would do this. Currently the decision to abort is in the hands of the woman and her physician, guided by the CMA's policy (which places restrictions on abortions after 20 weeks). A return to our previous law, which required approval by 3 independent physicians, is not workable (some women died because the physician with the most up to date and in depth information - the woman's own physician - was removed from the decision, except as a petitioner to the panel of 3). Many countries with laws on late term abortions (including the US, UK, etc) have higher late-term abortion rates than Canada, and one would want to look for some solution which did not increase the number of such abortions.
What exactly would you propose? Would you like to see some oversight that involves more than the woman and her own doctor? A panel? Or just one other doctor? I believe one Scandinavian country takes this approach and it works well, although in practice it just means each doctor has his/her consultant doctor for this purpose and it is not clear it adds anything beyond leaving it up to the woman and her own physician.
The point is if you want to criminalize abortion, you want to do it in such a way that does not lead to unnecessary deaths of pregnant women and does not lead to increased numbers of abortion. Comparing our statistics to those in other developed countries show it is not clear what, if any, kind of criminalization would achieve this. Partly this can be attributed to the fact that the CMA policy leads to a conservative approach to any abortions beyond 20 weeks.
One could imagine trying to turn the CMA policy into law, but still leave the woman and her physician as responsible for making sure the law is followed. The difficulty is trying to turn a policy by doctors for doctors into the black and white, all details spelled out in legal terms. How serious does the risk to the woman's life need to be? How serious do the fetal defects need to be? Some countries maintain a list of defects and diseases, updated annually. Would you like Canada to do this? Who decides which defects make the list?
"what would be the harm in making it illegal, except in cases where the mother might die during child birth?"
Slippery slope, buddy.
The anti-choice lobby are looking to back that "crime at 8 months" back to conception.
How's that working out in some states south of the border?
In 2005, Gerardo Flores received a life sentence in Texas for two counts of capital murder after helping his girlfriend abort her twins when she couldn't get an abortion. The decision was upheld in Feb this year in appeals court.
See how that works?
Whether it is discrete fetal rights, or illegal abortion laws, they both fundamentally are designed to strip women of their autonomy as individuals - largely on a moral supposition that a pregnant woman is no longer qualified to make her own moral and ethical decisions.
(purely because she might make a choice that others would disagree with)
People always talk over each other's head on this... this is easily the most reasoned exchange I've ever seen online.
I was going to link to the CMA's policy too, because it really surprised me to learn they had this after 20 weeks policy - I've always been someone who isn't proud that Canada has no abortion law... but it seems to me that the CMA's policy may be 'better' than the laws of most countries. I wonder though if it applies to abortion clinics, or if they operate outside of that. And if the CMA's policy is just in terms of protecting the fetus/unborn against unnecessary abortions is it something that isn't much more than a guideline?
I don't think one month would work, just because it feels arbitrary - it would have to be either third trimester or defined as 'late-term'.
I knew this was coming when I decided to write about something as contentious as abortion. Both sides in this debate are prone to exageration and hyperbole. I am going to do some more research JJ, but I'm going to keep an open mind. I'm going to stick to late term abortions because it appears that's where this debate is focused. And on a personal level I have no issue with an abortion taking place during the first trimester.
Obviously I'm a guy, but I will point out (without going into any real detail) that I do have some first hand experience in this area. I'll be leaving out details of my own experiences due to the fact that it impacts others.
Here is the CMA Policy.
The CMA covers all physicians in Canada, including those working in clinics. This policy is renewed and voted on every year, so in that way, it has the support of physicians.
The 20 weeks comes in because the fetus may be viable after that time. The CMA policy does not spell out the "exceptional circumstances" required for a late term abortion. Our abortion statistics suggest that, in practice, this is at least as restrictive as the US, UK and most other countries where this is legally spelled out. I have read that some Canadian women who need a late term abortion for serious health reasons have had to go to the US, because so few facilities in Canada perform these.
This is and issue between a woman and her doctor. I do not find the whole "try to draw a line somewhere" idea very progressive and am highly suspicious at a so-called progressive bringing it up.
"an" issue even...thanks WMO
Woman at Mile 0
"do not find the whole "try to draw a line somewhere" idea very progressive and am highly suspicious at a so-called progressive bringing it up".
There's no conspiracy here, just an individual (me) expressing opinion. Debate and exchange is something I consider to be very progressive. Digging in heels and hurling insults I find not only regressvive, but juvenile to boot.
I am in favour of abortion on demand, but not during the latter stages of pregnancy (see the post after this one).
It may very well be that this is one of those either or questions. Either its no law and abortion legal at any point...or a total ban. If it comes down to that then I'm in favour of the status quo.
Sometimes issues become so polarized that a progressive compromise can't be reached...because both sides view the other as regressive.
Labels are so much fun.
So your opinion, if adopted, would take precedence over the decision of a Doctor and his patient?
his/her patient even...*sigh*...must sleep tonight
The idea that abortions are not done in the third trimester is wrong.
It is. And not only for "extreme" reasons. The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada will admit as much.
I've documented it on my blog.
Not all abortions are counted in Canada. There are probably more than StatsCan says there are, because the medical system defines late-term abortion as "stillbirths".
So we don't know the actual number of late-term abortions.
SUZANNE - Please provide a link to where the Abortion Rights Coalition has "admitted as much" that 3rd tri abortions are done for convenience. Ever.
Other readers here should know that the SUZANNE's "documentation" includes data about abortions at 20 weeks (2nd tri, not late term), stories from other countries (not under our legal jurisdiction last time I looked), and stories about LTA done for fetal abnormality or other medical issues, which most people are okay with.
"Not all abortions are counted in Canada. There are probably more than StatsCan says there are, because the medical system defines late-term abortion as "stillbirths"."
Probably? Why's that, SUZANNE? Because you say so? Because you have a "hunch"? You need to provide proof. If this procedure is indeed being done in Canada for reasons *other than medical issues*, there should be records of it and it should be easy to prove. There should also be records of women sent stateside for it.
And why would the medical system define late term abortion as a stillbirth? That's absurd. You're really wandering into tinfoil hat realm with that one.
Hi All,
I am enjoying reading all the comments here - thanks for providing a sane forum, Gordie.
To JJ - here is some hard proof for you. Stats Canada readily admits that abortion records are not kept. In the latest stats released for 2005, they admit (go to the site yourself and see) that of the 96,815 abortions performed in 05, records were kept for only 41,330. When you break that down, there were 50,562 hospital abortions (reported) of which records were available for only 34,425. Of the 46,692 clinic abortions, records were kept for a shocking 6,905. Further to this, it was admitted by Debbie Copes, the medical director of Choice in Health who has been performing abortions for the past 20 years that "I think the data [Stats Can] have is not sufficient. I can think of at least 10,000 procedures that are happening in Toronto that aren't being counted" Globe & Mail article, May 22, 2008.
Suffice it to say that there are many thousands of abortion taking place in Canada that we know nothing about. It is naive to think that late term abortions are not happening, or that they are happening only when the mother's life is in danger. In an "abortion on demand" culture as permissive as ours, you can bet they are happening for the same reasons that any other abortion is.
Links, please. Sorry darling but "Go to the site yourself and see" and "you can bet they are happening" might make the cut as "hard proof" on your planet, but not in the real world.
The onus is on you to prove this is happening. Until then, it's bullshit.
Stop lying.
I found the Globe & Mail link myself, and Natalie is being about as disingenuous as I expected.
The "10k abortions" referred to in the article are the ones done in doctors' offices, which means they're very early term, which in turn means they really have nothing to do with what's being discussed.
I guess it's too much to ask that you people stop lying and misrepresenting data.
Such a bogus debate that really is just a ruse to try to curb women's reproductive rights. How many third term abortions are being performed? Less than 1% and rarely if ever because a woman has decided against a pregnancy.
The optics of this debate assume that women are either frivolous or stupid. Women who do not want to be pregnant know what to do as soon as they discover they are pregnant. They weigh their options and make a decision. How long it takes before they can access an abortion is a sad reflection of the number of provinces/communities that try to place hurdles to that decision.
Another factor among young women is the lack of comprehensive sex education. Young women should know that they should be taking birth control and pregnancy tests when they are sexually active. This would ensure that they would have safe choices to make in the first trimester. There are horror stories of teen females in the US not realizing that they were pregnant before the cut-off date for legal abortions who take extremely dangerous steps to stop a pregnancy or resort to infanticide/abandonment. These are not situations we want to create as a society.
The framing of this debate, "abortion right up until time of birth" is insulting to women and not worthy of debate.
Ask yourself, how many women who do not want to be pregnant would wait for the third trimester to abort? Give your freaking head a shake? It's a f*cking non-issue and how dare anyone hold a woman and her physician who decide that a non-viable or dangerous pregnancy require a late term abortion in contempt.
It took 250 years to make the blind see that Africans are full persons with the rights to life and liberty. I hope it doesn't take that long to make the blind see that unborn children are full persons with the right to life. Judging by some of the comments from supporters of legal abortion on this blog, however, we have a ways to go yet.
Post a Comment