Fetal pain is a lie

meant to add that pro-choicers need to stop getting trapped by pro-lifers into these arguments, which only validates their women-hating agenda. 

Yup. Getting duped into arguing the contrary side of this only makes one sound like a baby butcher and an easy target. Anyone who has actually had to consider abortion knows it is a lie.

It's not like choice isn't under assault in Canada, but at least the Supreme Court has correctly ruled where the bottom line lies - with the woman who is carrying that pregnancy.

Ghislaine wrote:

whether they feel pain or not is a diversion and irrelevant.

I don't think so. If fetuses feel pain at a certain stage of development, then anaesthesia should be used prior to abortions at and after that point in a pregnancy. What's the downside to that? It's still the woman's choice (and I am firmly pro-choice) but it would prevent needless suffering of a non-person but certainly a homo sapiens. Or, never mind the homo sapiens bit, just avoiding the suffering of any creature seems worthwhile.

Methinks Snuckles - who never ever comments on the threads s/he opens - has scored another triumph! Eight (8) posts (9 counting this one) on a non-issue, and re-launching the "debate" over abortion - even though everyone seems to be on the same side!

You see, once you say, "well, 2nd term abortions [b]usually[/b] involve a general anaesthetic", you're trapped. What if the woman doesn't [b]want[/b] a general anaesthetic, or it's medically contraindicated for some reason. Will the foetus then feel pain? Do "we" force the woman to have an anaesthetic? Do we deny her right to an abortion if she won't agree to be anaesthetized!?

Ah, the possibilities!! I suggest this thread be closed before we start citing scientific studies about how to "protect the foetus" while still defending women's right to choose. Because, you see, in the final analysis, and I really hate to point this out, but abortion and protecting the foetus are fundamentally incompatible notions. So let's not get sucked into that U.S.-style conversation, please.

 

I disagree, U. The "just ignore them and they'll go away" tactic has proved to be a monumental failure in preventing the spread of pseudoscience, for instance. The rise of the anti-vaccine movement has been bolstered by the attitude that "These people are too stupid to argue with," and now we have rising rates of people choosing to leave their kids vulnerable to polio, tetanus, hepatitis, encephalitis, meningitis, and so forth.

And Francesca's comments show how it's not a non-issue. Sure, the anti-choicers are doing nothing more than throwing their shit against the wall to see what sticks, but instead of just saying, you're feeding the anti-woman trolls, we can say, like the article does, that a fetus doesn't have a well-developed-enough nervous system to feel pain until around 26 weeks, past the point of a vast majority of abortions.

True, you're not going to convert any zealots. But if you don't debunk the lies, you're handing the zealots the means by which they may sway the fence-sitters.

The battle has not been won. It continues.

Unionist wrote:

So Sineed, if a woman doesn't want a general, how does that affect your argument in #8?

It's a surgical procedure that causes intense pain. Some sort of anaesthesia is required. And if someone says, what about those women who opt for epidurals, you call them out for slippery slope. 

Like I said, it's not going to work on the zealots. 

Unionist wrote:

I'm really just suggesting we don't pretend that issues which may be controversial in the United States or Saudi Arabia are actually worth taking on in Canada.

Reasonable, and I agree. But if someone like Francesca reads about these things and responds to them, we can say, we got this; here's what the facts are. I agree that we need to pick our battles, that there are larger issues afoot in Canada, but there are a small number of these zealots in this country, be they anti-gay Christian fundamentalists or anti-choicers, and I think it's a mistake to ignore them when they try to rekindle debates they already have long since lost.

Some of these anti-choice homophobic fundamentalist Christians in Canada are in government. We ignore them at our peril.

 

alan smithee wrote:

As I've said...SoCons are a cancer....They must go at all costs.....They are far more dangerous than the Liberals.

Sure. But while some liberal (small-L) thinkers might not fall for this, they might just fall for another wedge issue like sex-selective abortion. Not everyone who is conflicted on this is a right-wing idealogue.  Sineed is right about meeting this head on.

 

Yes. But if we argue that "aw well, y'know, foetuses don't really feel pain", we're done.

Even the Criminal Code doesn't recognize foetuses as human beings. Even the Supreme Court said to Parliament, strike down the law, and we're not telling you to replace it with anything. And we, the progressive forces, are supposed to defend women's ownership of their own body by debating details about medical procedures that no ordinary person really understands? Or try to argue the cultural/religious merits of sex-selection abortions, instead of just sticking to the fundamental slogan of justice and equality that got us to where we are today : "Keep your hands off my body!"?

If we engage these "debates", women's gains will be put at risk.

Enough of the side-tracking about pseudo-science too. This has nothing to do with that and I'm offended it's being used as a trojan horse in this thread.

I don't think anyone here is calling for a debate. I think most of us know it's contrary to policy anyway, and my first reaction here was to resist falling into that.

But again, I think Sineed is right. Taking the time to point out concisely that crap is crap, and why it is crap - without getting into a wrestling match with fools -  can sometimes be a bit more instructive than rolling out the police tape and geiger counters and clearing the area. And it raises a bit less suspicion from some who might have honest questions.

But anyway, I think I'm done.

francesca, why is sex-selective abortion repulsive and abortion for another reason no repulsive? You do not get to make that call. Only for your own pregnancies. Only the pregnant woman can determine what is right for her. 

Get rid of patriarchal societies that value men over women, and sex selection will cease to exist. Circumstances for outcomes of male and female children are better here than in other parts of the world, and a such, reflected in the low number of sex selection abortions that occur in Canada (not that any have beeen proven, only the taint of racist assumptions).

Bottom line, Ghislaine is absolutely right. Whatever reason a woman has to terminate a pregnancy is none of our business. FULL STOP.

laine lowe wrote:

Get rid of patriarchal societies that value men over women, and sex selection will cease to exist.

Although I agree wholeheartedly, I wouldn't even engage the argument to the extent of saying that. Why does our society need a conversation on whether sex-selection abortion is right, wrong, or indifferent? Only the women-haters benefit from that.

Quote:

Bottom line, Ghislaine is absolutely right. Whatever reason a woman has to terminate a pregnancy is none of our business. FULL STOP.

That's what I would say.

Otherwise it never ends. Example: How about abortion in case of a foetus with so-called "birth defects"? Should that be "allowed"? Should it depend on the nature and extent of the "defects" (which, of course, would be an analysis made by someone other than the woman)? Aren't "we" facilitating discrimination on the basis of disability?

Once the motive of the woman is brought into the discussion, the limits on freedom will inevitably show their heads as well.

 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Evidently you are wiser than the former editor of the Canadian Medical Association Journal, who argued in an editorial not too long ago that doctors should take public policy into their own hands and refuse abortion requests based on that.

That's actually false.

You've obviously confused a discussion about whether or when to disclose the sex of a foetus, which is quite radically different from whether or not to respect a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy.

You really believe there's an official medical association in Canada, or its journal, which would advocate denying abortion on demand? No, I'm not talking about the Dutch Reformed Islamic Evangelist Chassidic Opus Dei Physicians Association.

There is no debate in this country about whether or not to "allow" a woman to have an abortion based on her motives - except among those women-hating forces who oppose abortion, period. Please let us not lower ourselves to having such conversations here.

 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Can you put your schoolteacher's cane back on the shelf, please?

Sure, if you promise to behave.

Quote:

But if I was technically mistaken, the upshot is the same - preventing choice, and refusing a woman's request for medical information about her own body.

Women have an inalienable right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term or not. Whether our health care system owes them an obligation to disclose to them, on demand, whether their foetus is male or of African descent or hearing-impaired - that's a separate discussion, with obviously different viewpoints being expressed in our country.

Quote:

Anyway, I won't link to the actual article directly, but evidently the Canadian Women's Health Network didn't mind ringing the alarm bells about it. They linked to it, and pointed out how it was inconsistent with standard obstetric practice:

http://www.cwhn.ca/en/node/44259

You must be reading a different text than me. Where exactly, in the page you linked, did they "ring the alarm bells" - or even "point out" anything? They merely reported on the CMAJ editorial, and then on the response of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists - besides providing several other links from the media. Where - exactly - did you see them express a point of view on this debate??

I'm still keeping the cane handy. We'll teach proper research, citation, and footnote skills if it takes corporal punishment.

[edited]

6079_Smith_W wrote:

They publicized it, and pointed out how it the association of gynecologists and obstetricians were of a different opinion. Again, my point was that they had no problem discussing the issue. Fall back on the myth of objectivity, if you wish.

I have no problem discussing the issue either. Sex selection is repugnant. Right to abortion is inalienable. What contradiction do you see there?

The Canadian Women's Health Network, which staunchly defends women's right to choose, has taken [i]no position[/i] that I'm aware of on the issue of disclosure. You were wrong to insinuate that they had.

Quote:

Even at the time the Supreme Court made the ruling on a woman's right to choose, they left questions about abortion unaddressed, and explicitly said so. We ignore that fact at our peril.

What questions were those? I want to ensure that I don't suffer peril through sheer ignorance.

The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether the Criminal Code provision was constitutional. They found that it was not. I don't know what else they said, but who cares?

 

 

Yeah, I understand extremely well that Parliament can re-criminalize abortion if they want to. That's why we should vigorously oppose any discussion that doesn't recognize women's right to choose as being fundamental. In particular, we should not import U.S. ultra-right conversations that don't even have any traction in Canada yet (foetal pain, for crissakes).

As for the Women's Health Network, we're not disagreed about anything. You simply attributed a motive and a position to them which they themselves have not expressed. I prefer to wait and listen.

 

 

I am saying that we can talk about the principle of a woman's right to choose all we want, but the fact is the legal foundation  is not as secure as we might imagine it to be.

Just saying that the right to choose is enshrined  in law is no absolute defense against the threats to that right that are still very real.

So you are saying smith is a false ally trying to intimidate?   And generally rights end when it can cause the death of others actually, tho Im not saying anything about the fetus as a person or not, just that your statement about rights being enshrined even if they cause the death of others is false

Then its wrong and would be defeated in any court battle

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I didn't bring it up to get into a theoretical discussion about competing rights, and no, a fetus is not a person under Canadian Law.

But if he wished to do so, and had enough power to whip his caucus, our PM could criminalize abortion in the next legislative session, using the notwithstanding clause. I take no pleasure in pointing that out. I only do so because the charter protection of women's rights, and abortion's current legal status are not 100% secure.

 

Been done, under the last majority that the CPC had under Brian Mulroney. Failed, largely due to public opposition.