babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
It might be interesting to compare these polls with public opinion in countries which still ban or severely restrict abortion rights. Is there a gender difference there, and if so, to what extent? My uneducated guess would be that males in those circumstances would oppose abortion in significantly larger numbers. Cf. the Catholic Church hierarchy.
It does not contradict a woman's choice, as long as the choice of when to have the fetus removed is HERS, not a doctor's. This really affects a tiny percentage of women regardless, but I do not see how it affects a woman's right to her body or her choice - as long as she can go in at any time up until natural birth and say " I do not want to be pregnant any more, get this out of me".
Anyhow, there is NO discussion warranted, excpet for increased access.
I am being straitforward and serious. Nothing I said in any way interfers with a woman's right to choose and for her to have the right to stop being pregnant at any time.
This is the succinct and plain truth and should be repeated, as is, every time anyone wants to initiate a "debate" about abortion.
Canada has done extremely well with no law (other than the Charter, as Catchfire points out) for 20 years. Public support for choice has only increased. There should no more be a law regarding abortion than regarding tonsillectomy.
And most Canadians - including legislators - won't have that.
[ 28 July 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
But I maintain that no law can or should (and would not withstand a Charter challenge anyways) force a woman be pregnant or carry a child against her will. I am not saying that a woman has to stay pregnant or will be refused. Just that when a fetus is removed past the age of viability it is kept alive, rather than killed. We currently do this for preemies.
[ 28 July 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
Well then, Ghislaine - and please listen carefully - would you like to see viable foetuses included in the same law that currently protects preemies?
No, as the law that currently protects preemies is the criminal code law defining a human being as someone who takes their first breath, correct?
What would be wrong with a law stating that past somewhere in the range of 24 weeks (determined by medical professionals) a fetus is removed and kept alive and treated as a preemie rather than being aborted. It would state that no doctor has a right to force a woman to stay pregnant, etc. etc. The Supreme Court ruling is based on the Charter section that no person can be forced to use their body against their will in the service of others. Such a law would not contrevene the Charter.
If you do not agree with the Charter as such, perhaps you agree that some sort of abortion law specifically stating a woman has a right to abort at any stage is necessary?
And no, I am not being deliberately obtuse. It is images of late-term abortions that people use to try and represent all abortion and to try and convince the public that a woman does not have a right to choose.
Ghislaine, you are to stay out of any thread concerning abortion, for good. If you post in any further threads on abortion, you will be removed from the board as a whole.
But as i read the forum a fair bit and this bothered me i thought i'd waste you're time for just a moment.
First of all, it's disgusting to me that any person male or female would advocate abortions at any stage of pregnancy. I'm most certainly pro choice, but damn make the choice within some reasonable time limit otherwise it becomes obscene. I know it almost never happens very late term, but why would anyone want to allow that for anything but serious medical concerns is more than i can understand. I just can't see how being this extreme as to accept nothing but abortions anytime is good for anyone.
Anyway, its too bad people can't talk about these issues here, i know this is a bastion of feminist thought only. Rightfully so, it's your house, but that still doesn't make your ideas reasonable or ethical.
anywhoo, sorry if i bothered anyone, ill be leavingsoon
Thanks for dropping in.
No one here advocates abortions. That you should say so indicates your bad faith (I would say ignorance, but you don't sound ignorant, and you claim to have "read the forum a fair bit").
That's why the debate itself is wrong. It opens the door to gross falsifications and character assassination, like the one you just committed.
NO, you are NOT, your first sentence gives lie to that pro-choice notion that you proclaim. You are a liar.And frankly, I am disgusted by people who would try to take away woman's Charter equality rights!
Fuck you, the loss of Charter equality rights are NOT up for debate here, nor should they be anywhere else!
Apparently you do not know what reasonable and ethical is, or you would NOT have lied, not have barged into someone else's home, and you would not have levelled BS.
Passive agggressive lie.[ 28 July 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
[ 29 July 2008: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]
Again I repeat, abortion does NOT have to be dealt with, let alone have anything to do with criminal law. What do you NOT get about human equality rights PFRD?
This really makes no sense.And there is NO hodge podge of provincial laws, nor would there be under any circumstance, actually!
And the government doesn't address issues of access because abortion is as the poll reveals, at least somewhat controversial to some (i.e people have different opinions,pro-life and pro-choice camps dispute each others claims about abortion,try to maintain or limit access respectively- this sort of makes it a debate, even if the poll indicates pro-choice is dominant).
With regards to the hodge podge bit (lunch was ending and my typing is bad, sorry), I meant that since it is a medical procedure covered under medicare and not under criminal law (after all, a woman's right to control her body isn't up for debate,and is not criminal, thus should not be in the criminal code. I am pro-choice remind.) If any laws were put into place explicitly stating the legality of abortion it would have to be provincial laws. Under all the above circumstances (and doing a little more reading) I guess an abortion law does not make much sense.
[ 29 July 2008: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]
Women outside major urban centers, or women in PEI which does not perform any abortion procedures (I don't know if there are other provinces like that) the clock starts from the time from finding out through a blood test that she's pregnant (can be 6-8 weeks), the choice to abort the pregnancy, to the time to arrange travel, time off from work/school, to the appointment itself. So much more time can pass than those of us in urban centers realize. Any time restriction leads to less access, which is the real issue on the ground now: making all hospitals perform abortions on demand.
There are still huge barriers for low-income women, but having access at all hospitals would be a start.
As for the 42%, I think the moralizing folks who yammer on about "what woman is worthy of having a justified abortion" fall into this category. I read somewhere about some right wingnut who talked about a very specific demographic, identifying age (young), race (white) and provable virginity prior to the vicious sexual assault that resulted in her getting pregnant as the only circumstances he would see an abortion being okay. Maybe I read that on babble? Anyways, whatever. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
The good news is the 5% who say never, are small.
[drift]
But this poll does bring up a few things. Have you noticed that when the polls say things we (progressives) like that support our views, we use them to make our point, but when the polls do not we say "Polls are crap."?
[/drift]
[ 30 July 2008: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]
*Subscriptions are a steal at 35$ (25$ - students, 50$ - institutions) for five 52-page issues: 5819 de Lorimier, Montrйal Qc H2G 2N8
Remind, what charter right are you speicfically refering to- I am not altogther very familiar with that document as I have never read it. Security of the person ? The clause about gender equality ?
Also, if health is the realm of the provinces, would it be acceptable for the federal government to try to get provinces to make abortion available by withholding transfer payments ? Wouldn't that be trying to enforce something that is outside their responsibility ?
[ 30 July 2008: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]
Both those 2 and freedom of conscience and privacy, as well as the criminal code which states no person can be compelled to give their body into the service of another, which was formerly only true for men. And the Charter equality rights back this criminal code premise of self determination.
It is the provinces responsibility to dispense health services, on a unbiased universal basis, the Health Act itself is under the providsion of the federal government. And yes it would be accepotable for the feds to withhold money, if the provinces were failing to meet the Health Act provisions.
No, it is their responsibility, and when thinking about this further, the Canadian College of Physians and Surgeons, may also be able to be pressured into making sure their members are conducting themselves within the Health Act provisions.Canada's abortion law (or, rather the total lack of an abortion law) is pretty well the most liberal on the planet, and its very likely to remain so, considering how vocal the pro-choicers are in this country.
Here's an exercise, how many countries allow for abortion in every juristiction, at any term in pregnancy, without the permission of a doctor? Very, very few I'd bet, even amongst industrialized ones.
Actually, provincial anti-abortion laws have been found to violate the division of powers for infringing on the federal parliament's power over criminal law, rather than being struck as violating the Charter.
Further, a caution that the decisions respecting abortion laws and the Charter have all been focused quite specifically on the exact provisions in place. It is not at all clear that the Charter itself provides an unfettered right to abortion. There is constitutional room for laws restricting access to abortion, which is why it really matters what politicians think and say on the issue.
And what is your point west coast greeny?
On abortion, Canada is way more liberal than the vast majority of countries (I would do that exercise), and more liberal than even most industrialized countries; and its likely to remain that way, because social conservatives and social moderates have a very hard time opening up debate on the issue.