Bill C-484 - What's really wrong with it?

While it may not be directly related to the Bill C-484 question, the European Union now has a policy on abortion legislation that it expects all its members to follow. It's clearly pro-choice, at least for the most part, though some of it reads as though restrictions in the later periods of pregnacy would not violate EU policy.

[url=http://assembly.coe.int/Mainf.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta08/ERES1... ABORTION POLICY[/url]

That point #6 would look good in the Canadian Charter, wouldn't it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):
[b]The resolution is not an EU resolution, but rather a resolution of the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe]Council of Europe[/url], a distinct entity from the EU.[/b]

---

You're quite right. I read it too quickly from a bulletin from the Schuman Foundation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]That point #6 would look good in the Canadian Charter, wouldn't it?[/b]

---

Well, a similar statement of self posession is contained within the criminal code of Canada. It states that; [i]no person can be compelled to give their body into the service of another person, even if that other person's life is in danger[/i]

It was used in T VS D SCC decision. And is seen to be fundamental to the reason why there can be no abortion laws in Canada.

Now back to number 6 itself and the way that it is worded.

WTF????????

They have to make a statement that women shall be included as "human beings"??

[i][b]The Assembly affirms the right of all human beings, women included, [/b][/i]

That we women are noted separately is mind boggling, and suggests to me that we can be removed from the statement then, if we have to be added.

BS patriarchy statements, no thanks, NOT in my Charter.

Sorry folks, I misread it, I thought it said "specifically women", because that's the true emphasis.

But what do you think of a Charter right to control one's own body? That's what I was really suggesting. The Criminal Code isn't good enough, because that can be changed in a heartbeat.

There are a number of sensitive issues where there are or could be conflicts between such a "right to control one's body" and collective interests. It seems easy for some to take the short-sighted, oftentimes right-wing view that the private is always to be kept out of the political sphere.
One can look, for instance, at legislation aimed at the selective abortion of female fetuses, incarceration, driving while intoxicated, privatisation of the healthcare system, buying sexual or reproductive services, possessing child pornography, etc., all of which require specific analysis and judicial treatment. Suicide brokers - with the predictable abuses - could rush in to exploit such a blanket entitlement.
There doesn't seem to be a simple legal solution that will automatically cover all the relevant rights and precautions. We need to maintain collective accountability in such matters.
(Also, if Mr. Epp and his cronies manage to create personhood for fetuses, there goes women's entitlement if a fetus becomes entitled to control what happens to it.)

[ 23 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]But what do you think of a Charter right to control one's own body? That's what I was really suggesting. The Criminal Code isn't good enough, because that can be changed in a heartbeat.[/b]

---

Section 7 of the Charter basically does that when it says it guarantees rights to life, liberty and security of the person, and I believe the Criminal Code law is based upon old common law that was established with the abolution of slavery.

D vs D went into this aspect.

quote:

---

There are a number of sensitive issues where there are or could be conflicts between such a "right to control one's body" and collective interests.

---

Collective interests must never impinge upon one's own body.

Consider a law that requires the chopping up of Martin's body into tiny fragments, with proven scientific ability to save the lives of 500 babies as a result.

While Martin would no doubt want to volunteer for this noble task, I think it would be deeply wrong, as well as illegal, for there to be a "collective interest" requiring Martin to submit to the collective interest.

A reservoir of individual rights, not subject to being overriden by some notional "collective interest", is required in any decent society.

quote:

---

I think it would be deeply wrong, as well as illegal, for there to be a "collective interest" requiring Martin to submit to the collective interest.

---

May I remind our esteemed colleague that it wasn't that long ago that Canada decreed to compel draft-age males to enlist and be shipped overseas to be blown, indeed, into tiny fragments for the collective interest?

[ 23 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

Ghislaine, if you or Jeff want to propose that a ban on any military conscription be added to the Canadian constitution, I will make space on my soapbox and support you wholeheartedly - even if Quebec has been locked out of this enviable document.
This however is not the issue. The issue is whether private freedoms involving "the body" always trump collective interests. Maybe they should - I have pointed out problems with that notion - but they don't, yet, contrary to Jeff's point.
Unfragmented Martin (e.g.- not the Tri-West Investment Club Girl Friday, not the Canada Steamship Lines off-shore investment mogul, not the witty comedian)

Actually yes, I do: this is an important issue that is usually glossed over.
But unfortunately my point isn't as far-fetched as you seem to think. I monitor men's rights rants and the notion that, since it's their "child," potential fathers ought to have "a say" when a women wants to abort or not to abort is quite widespread, and taken up by RW editorialists, preachers and politicians throughout the 'civilized' world. This is precisely why Tremblay went to Court against Chantal Daigle in 1988, with the support I might add, of Campagne Quйbec-Vie and the anti-choice movement.
Didn't you know that?

[ 23 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

I don't like the idea of a draft. I think democratic societies ought to be able to find enough defenders without press gangs.

We used to call it "selective slavery", and I think that wasn't a bad name for it.

p.s. this is actually related to the discussion about whether torture is ever permissible "in the public interest" of course.

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]Here is one. Some cultures and people still believe that female genital mutilation (FGM) enhances a woman's chances of being happily married. The parent of a young girl can come forward and say: "It's her body. I am her guardian, representing her interests. I want the operation done." Collective interests argue against FGM, of course, but what do you tell this parent and his/her lawyer, especially knowing they can get the operation in much more unsafe conditions elsewhere?[/b]

---

I am not sure how "collective interests" argue against FGM for starters.

Secondly, banning this practice in Canada on children would not contravene the proposed additional of complete private control and ownership of one's body. Once the girl is 18, she could decide for herself to have the procedure.

I don't think this example really has anything to do with this proposal.

As to it happening in other countries. this is something hard to control. Many people also think that male circumcision is inhumane.

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b] I monitor men's rights rants and the notion that, since it's their "child," potential fathers ought to have "a say" when a women wants to abort or not to abort is quite widespread, and taken up by RW editorialists, preachers and politicians throughout the 'civilized' world.[/b]

---

Slow down, friend.

Which part of "control over one's own body" did you not understand?

The problem with C484 is very simple. It recognizes the fetus as a separate legal entity.
The threat to prochoice has nothing to do with whether the fetus is called a fetus or a child or a whatever. The threat is that the fetus has a unique human status. Therefore the bill must be thrown out, not amended or tinkered with.
Joyce Arthur and others have suggested that the killing of a fetus, in these situations, could be addressed with legislation reflecting the aggravated nature of the assualt, however we all know that the real purpose of the Bill is to set a legal precedent for fetal rights, under these specific terms, and then build the case for further fetal rights from there. IMO voting on this bill will be along Prochoice and Prolife lines. ie prochoice against and prolife for.
This is where prochoice is vulnerable to a backlash from mainstream Canada ie concerns with the humanity of the fetus. This is clearly the prolife tactic. To put the emphasis on the humanity of the fetus. This bill is one example. The bigger battle though, which is already being waged with the recent poster campaign, is term limits on abortion. This will be a tough battle for prochoice to win, as I don't think it will take much for mainstream Canada to be persuaded that late term abortions are "not a good thing"
However any legal status of the fetus beyond whatever that term cutoff might be,I think would be hard to accomplish. Prolife would run out of gas there. Mainstream Canada would probably leave it at that.
Thats just the way I see things potentially playing out. ProLife has a staged approach to gaining fetal rights and their strategy is to win over public opinion without completely threatening Choice, anticipating that politicans will fall inline with the wishes of the public.

quote:

---

So are you saying that these are two cases where "collective interests" should over-ride the right to control one's own body?

---

Yes.
But that's just my own opinion on the matter.
My main point is that there are areas where the right to control what happens to one's body cannot be treated as an absolute, without other interests balancing it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b] No, I don't think so: neither women, nor men. I don't think there is a compelling ethical interest in allowing the selective aborting of female fetuses to continue, just because males have traditionally been more valued in our patriarchal culture. It's certainly better than killing "superfluous" daughters at birth - as was done in many cultures -, but it is still sexist and encourages the social devaluation of women. Indeed, it is now against the law for doctors to give out the relevant information in many countries where this kind of triage is already creating a serious imbalance in live births.
[url=http://www.doctorndtv.com/news/detailnews.asp?id=1838]Female feticide explains dearth of girls in India[/url]
I suspect that a lot more people would be up in arms if it were male fetuses that were systematically being selected out, don't you?

[ 24 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ][/b]

---

Okay, this is anti-choice bs. Women have the right to abort for whatever reason they want and they have the right to know if the fetus inside them is male or female or whatever.

The right to own and control one's own body should be an absolute right and your opinion only furthers my belief in this.

There are also more POC being aborted than white fetuses - should restrictions be placed on this?

As you can see, the reasons for sex-selective abortion or higher abortion rates for POC, etc. are due mainly to societal factors. Restricting abortion will not change these issues of poverty within certain communities or the devalueing of women.

Sex-selective abortion of males does occur as well. Women who already have 3 sons for example and want a daughter can abort until they get a daughter.

Personally I would never abort for any reason and would try and convince any one I know considering it not to. That, however in no way changes my position that [i]legally[/i] a woman (and men - but their bodies by way of bioligical reality are much less vulnerable to infringements than women) should have the right to complete control and knowledge about her body.

Would you ever propose restricting a man's right to know the results of certain medical tests? I doubt it. But you somehow think it is okay to propose restricting a woman's right to know details about her body and restricting he right to do what she thinks is best for it based on your [b]male[/b]opinion!!!

Women can be trusted to make choices about their body and their reproductive capacity with all the knowledge that is available to them.

Furthermore, women can make the decision to abort for any reason whatsoever, including sex selection. Any reason for abortion is good enough.

Women who chose not to carry female fetuses to term do so for a variety of reasons, all of them good reasons. If a woman just doesn't like girl babies, that's a good enough reason to abort a female fetus - do you really want someone raising a girl if she really doesn't want to? If a woman comes from a family that devalues women, that's a good enough reason for her to choose not to bring one into that family.

I have no problem with seeing a high incidence of sex selection in any given family or society as a sign that there are issues of misogyny to be worked out on a familial or societal basis. But in the meantime, individual women must have the right to make any and all reproductive decisions for herself, with any and all information that can be made available to her.

If you want it to make sense, do copy it as a response to your leading set-up...

That is your way of summarizing what I wrote. If you are ill at ease with a man intoning on this issue, I fully respect that and am ready to demur. (I hope Big Ben in the Vatican and Harper in Ottawa do the same, of course.)
But it's a fact that there is a difference of positions between liberals and radical feminists about what to do regarding female feticide. Some women are concerned about millions of females (reportedly ten million per year, in India alone) being derailed from the birth process because of rampant sexism. They point out that the choice to selectively abort them is not so much that of their potential mothers as that of a culture that devalues female lives. When an Indian doctor tells an expectant couple that a fetus is female, how do you know whether the choice to abort would be that of the woman involved? These are problems that derive from the development of antenatal monitoring technology, and some feminists are resisting that technology's impact on people's lives. These are difficult issues and, as I wrote, I merely expressed a personal opinion in a complex ethical debate. If you have a cut-and-dry solution, well...

[ 24 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]But it's a fact that there is a difference of positions between liberals and radical feminists about what to do regarding female feticide.[/b]

---

I can't help myself. Which are the "liberals" and which are the "radical feminists?" I've always figured that being pro-choice means I accept that each individual woman gets to make the choice even if it's a choice I don't like made for reasons I don't like (in much the same way that being pro-democracy means that I accept the fact that some voters will cast votes I disagree with). I'd like to find out if I've been a radical feminist all this time and didn't know it.

[ 24 April 2008: Message edited by: pogge ]

There aren't only radical feminists. Here is what some Indian feminists are saying and doing about the issue, beyond the important but limited paradigm of individual choice. [url=http://www.ifes.org/features.html?title=Interview%20with%20Ms%25%20Kulde... with Ms. Kuldeep Kaur[/url]

[ 24 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]