Saturday, January 26, 2008

'Celebrating' abortion

Suzanne and Matthew have both done excellent jobs fisking Judy Rebick's contribution to the ongoing abortion debate in the National Post - Celebrating a victory for women.

This column bothers me on so many levels, but I suppose what I object to the most is her opening paragraph:

The majority of Canadians support a women's right to control her own body and have no moral problems with abortion. For me and thousands of other women who fought hard for reproductive freedom, this 20th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision striking down the abortion law is a day to celebrate...
As Suzanne notes, there are many polls that show that the majority of Canadians actually would favour some sort of restriction on abortion. That figure likely goes even higher when talking about some kind of legal protection against violence perpetrated on the mother and her unborn child. However, many times the results of the poll depend on who commissioned it in the first place, and what kind of agenda they were pushing. And in any case, few if any politicians want to take on this explosive issue.

But what's this about the majority having "no moral problems" with abortion? Now where did you get that information, Judy? No moral problems? Not the tiniest qualm of regret or a minuscule prick of conscience? And the majority feel this way?

Frankly, I'm surprised the National Post even included this op-ed in their series. If these are the the most compelling arguments that the pro-choice side has to offer, I think the only thing Ms. Rebick should be celebrating is Canadian complacency and apathy.


* * * *
Here is a startling statistic, but who knows if it's any more accurate than Judy Rebick's? - "In Canada, there are roughly 500,000 pregnancies a year, with one abortion for every three live births."

Related: The Catholic Register - Jan. 28, 1988: A notorious date.

Liberals for Life Write Dion - CLC

David Frum - The Day Humanity Became Cheap.

Matthew says he'll be discussing this one early next week - Long live Morgentaler! by Colby Cosh.

Dr. Roy - Defeat for children and life.

Statistics - Abortions by Gestational Age

66 comments:

Anonymous said...

Does Judy Rebick also support capital punishment?

hunter said...

Well this women has a moral problem with abortion, it's one of the ten commandments, "Thou shalt not kill".

tori said...

oooh boy.

sorry guys, but on this topic, I will have to respectfully agree to disagree.

I have a problem with late term abortions to be sure, but if a woman wants to have an abortion within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, then that is her call, her body.

And with that, I've just opened the floodgate :)

Joanne (True Blue) said...


I have a problem with late term abortions to be sure, but if a woman wants to have an abortion within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, then that is her call, her body.


Tori, I think that is a reasonable approach, and I bet most Canadians would be o.k. with it.

The fact is that we have no legal restrictions on abortion at all in Canada, and we the only western country to be in this situation.

Kingston said...

Tori, You have accurately described my thoughts on this subject also. Although being male, I truly believe that if there is to be any legal requirements regarding this, it should be driven by the females, not us males.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

At the very minimum I would like to see some restrictions on public funding for multiple abortions - i.e. when a the same woman has several.

Raphael Alexander said...

I think it's somewhat disingenuous of the pro-lifers to present us with graphic images of late-term abortions when the fact is that they are as rare as getting hit by lightning.

Having said that, I don't like the idea of people using abortion as birth control. But I think the subject is done to death. Women won't surrender their reproductive rights again. The best one can hope for is a ban after the first trimester. And protection for women who carry to term by making it a crime to hurt a fetus.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

But I think the subject is done to death.

Especially for the fetus.

I agree with your proposal though Raphael. I could live with a compromise like that.

Möbius said...

At the very minimum I would like to see some restrictions on public funding for multiple abortions - i.e. when a the same woman has several.

But how prevalent is this? Are you proposing an "abortion registry"?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Ha-ha. Leave it to Möbius. ;)

tori said...

but see, this is where it gets tricky...

I'm not a doctor, but what if there is a case when a woman, late in her pg finds out for the first time that if she carries the baby to term it can harm her?

As much as I don't like the idea later term abortions, I think the reason why there are no abortion laws is that it is too difficult to account for every possible circumstance.

And then there is the whole slippery slope argument, but in the opposite direction...if we make it against the law for late term aobrtions, well, define "late term". And there will be the push to inch back until there is a push to ban abortion outright.

The idea that the govt could demand me to do something with my body that I did not want to do scares me.

tori said...

sorry for the disjointed thoughts and typos...trying to have a debate while making dinner is NOT recommended :)

SUZANNE said...

Hi Joanne

Rebick is citing 2003 stats. StatsCan doesn't put gestational ages on its website. Here are 2004 stats:

http://www.abortionincanada.ca/stats/abortion_gestational_age.html

Remember, that the 0.4% number is based on a sample of about 40 000 abortions. And many late-term abortions are not counted in the stats because they're coded as stillbirths. So there are a far greater number. I have a hunch (and it's only a hunch) that the number of late-term abortions in Canada is more around 1000 a year.

SUZANNE said...

Trying again.

Abortion stats

SUZANNE said...

The idea that the govt could demand me to do something with my body that I did not want to do scares me.

It's not asking you to do anything. In fact, it's asking you to do NOTHING about your pregnancy. Just let it happen.

If it forced you to get pregnant or have an abortion then you'd have an argument.

SUZANNE said...

I think it's somewhat disingenuous of the pro-lifers to present us with graphic images of late-term abortions when the fact is that they are as rare as getting hit by lightning.

The issue is about whetehr the unborn child deserves legal protection. If he does, then one death is too many.

This is a human rights campaign. Unborn children are equal human beings and deserve legal rights.

Women won't surrender their reproductive rights again.

The idea is ascribing equal rights to the fetus. They thought southerners wouldn't surrender their property rights and abandon slavery, either.

SUZANNE said...

Although being male, I truly believe that if there is to be any legal requirements regarding this, it should be driven by the females, not us males.

The idea that men shouldn't have an opinion on abortion is stupid and sexist. If you believe in fetal rights, then you believe in fetal rights and you should fight for it.

tori said...

Actually, I quite like what the govt is doing...understanding that it is my reproductive system and that it has no right to dictate what I do with it.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

As much as I don't like the idea later term abortions, I think the reason why there are no abortion laws is that it is too difficult to account for every possible circumstance.

Tori, I hear you about making dinner. Mine is burning.

I think that we could look to other civilized countries to see how they deal with these issues.

tori said...

"The idea is ascribing equal rights to the fetus"

but how can that be done, when an embryo and a woman are hardly equal to begin with?

Anonymous said...

Personally I'm of the opinion that if you're having unprotected sex you're inherently accepting the pregnancy risk. Abortions should be prohibited for any case where the mother's life is not at risk.

I honestly have tried to understand how women in support of abortion can rationalize this. They've KILLED their child... that's supposed to be okay? What's the difference between killing the child in utero and drowning her in the bathtub or bashing in her brains with a hammer? How do they live with themselves knowing that because of their selfishness they've denied another person life?

And let's call a spade a spade. Abortion supporters are the most selfish people on the planet. Their argument basically boils down to "cuz I wanna" or "cuz it's inconvenient to me".

If the mother's life isn't threatened by the pregnancy or the pregnancy isn't a result of a rape, then there should be no access to abortion. Don't wanna have a kid? Use effective birth control. Or better yet get sterilized... Lord knows we don't need another generation growing up without any concept of value of human life.

tori said...

suzanne,

with all due respect, I think the issue here is one of definition.

I'm noticing that you tend to use the word "child" and "children" a lot..and that is your right.

But I just don't see what basically amounts to growing cells in the beginning stages as a child. I just don't.

As a woman, regardless of how I feel about abortion- I just do not feel comfortable dictating to another woman that she must carry the pg to term if this is not what she wants to do. I do not walk in her shoes.

tori said...

"What's the difference between killing the child in utero and drowning her in the bathtub or bashing in her brains with a hammer? "

There is actually quite a difference.

rations said...

There was a case recently of a women shot through a door in Winnipeg. The victim was some eight months pregnant and had already chosen a name and started buying baby clothes and furniture. The women died and also the unborn child couldn't be saved. If caught the shooter can only be charged with one murder. The question arises about the unborn being wanted.

Roy Eappen said...

I would prefer there be no abortions, but I certainly want restrictions later in pregnancy. If this is the greatest victory for feminists that is pretty sad. Thats why I call them the death cult.
Most women who have abofrtions will tell you that this was not triumph for them

liberal supporter said...

I believe it is suzanne's position that the State should use its coercive power to prohibit all abortions from conception, no exceptions. I respect that position more than any other except my own, which is that State protection of a child as a separate legal individual begins at birth.

anon 6:32, why allow abortion for cases of rape? Do you support killing born children if the mother was raped? What's the difference?

There are two problems with the rape exception. Suppose the rapist claims consent? Do you believe the case can make it through the courts in time to allow a safe early abortion? The second problem is what if the woman claims she was raped but can't identify the rapist? What if she is suspected of fabricating the story? Does she have to wait until she is cleared in court before she can have the abortion?

The whole problem with abortion under conditions, such as up until an arbitrary number of weeks, or abortion only under certain conditions (like rape), is that it is difficult to determine with certainty that the conditions are met, in the short time available.

If we are to consider the fetus as a separate legal person with the same rights as anyone else, then the decision to kill it has to have the same level of protection of its rights as a capital murder case. As we know, capital murder cases can take years to eventually be cleared to carry out the execution. How can our legal system possibly decide to allow killing a fetus and respect its rights within 9 months?

pwerry said...

Joanne I think that we're pretty much leading the charge here in the western world on this issue, so looking to other countries would probably be of no benefit. The issue requires careful scientific analysis and a carefully constructed argument regarding restrictions. It needs to be laid out in court in a way that will garner majority public support.

The problem we face is that there are two sides of the issue, each one a polar opposite. People of these extreme views, both pro-choice and pro-life, have become so entangled in their own dogma that they have removed themselves from the true nature of the argument. This argument is a scientific and philosophical one, which can't be won with emotion or rhetoric.

It pains me to see, like climate change and all other variety of scientific problems, an issue like abortion because so politicized that people toss away the scientific method. This issue is not about two sides "winning" or "losing". It's a serious issue that requires concrete scientific and philosophical analysis and above all, open-mindedness.

tori said...

"The whole problem with abortion under conditions, such as up until an arbitrary number of weeks, or abortion only under certain conditions (like rape), is that it is difficult to determine with certainty that the conditions are met, in the short time available."

thank you, LS.

you said this much more susinctly than I.

SUZANNE said...

I'm noticing that you tend to use the word "child" and "children" a lot..and that is your right.

But I just don't see what basically amounts to growing cells in the beginning stages as a child. I just don't.


As far as surgical abortion is concerned, it is scientifically inaccurate to call the developing embryo "a cluster of cells".

Surgical abortions begin at five weeks. At five weeks, there are arm and legs buds. There's a beating heart. There are brain waves. Calling the developing embryo "a bunch of cells" masks the reality of the embryo.

"Child" is not a misnomer. A child is human offspring. The embryo is an organism who is the produce of sexual relations between two human beings, therefore he is offspring. Therefore, he deserves to be called a "child" and in fact, he is called "a child" by medical professionals until the subject of abortion comes up.

As a woman, regardless of how I feel about abortion- I just do not feel comfortable dictating to another woman that she must carry the pg to term if this is not what she wants to do. I do not walk in her shoes.

Suppose the issue weren't about an embryo, but an adult human being shrunken to size and maliciously implanted into a uterus? Would it be okay to kill that adult?

I say no. Because we do not have the right to take innocent human life. All human beings have the right to life, regardless of their location or circumstances. If they are not performing any aggressive action, and pose no physical threat, they should not be killed.

The ultimate reason for abortion's existence is to escape motherhood by having the right to kill a fetus. It's not about the woman's body. If it were, why not just deliver the embryo/fetus without the dismemberment? Although this is done with chemical abortion, it's not with surgical abortion, it could be done with surgical abortion. But the fact is, in late-term abortion, when the baby is viable, feticide is performed, i.e. a poisonous injection is shot in the baby's heart. If "evacuating the uterus" or "stopping the pregnancy" were enough, feticide would not be necessary because the task of evacuating the uterus and stopping the pregnancy would have been achieved. Clearly then, the goal is to escape parenting and shield oneself of the consequences of one's decisions. That is the goal of abortion. It's not about "a woman's body". That's the excuse. It's about being able to kill to avoid parenting.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

It's not about "a woman's body". That's the excuse. It's about being able to kill to avoid parenting.

Well, I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with that interpretation.

There is always adoption, but then I hear about the trauma of 'having to give up the baby'.

Pul-leeze. You were prepared to kill your baby a few months ago, and now you're going through trauma because you may have bonded?

C'mon.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Here's what I don't get.

Theoretically, a Canadian woman can decide up until the moment of birth whether or not she wishes to end the life of her child and the taxpayer must fund it, but one minute after birth all that changes and it is suddenly a crime to do so.

Why?

tori said...

Please define "brain waves".

"Suppose the issue weren't about an embryo, but an adult human being shrunken to size and maliciously implanted into a uterus? Would it be okay to kill that adult?"

but a shrunken adult is not comparable to an embryo, clearly. At the very least, an embryo lacks frontal lobes and has a sketchy forbrain at best. This analogy does not work.

"I say no. Because we do not have the right to take innocent human life. All human beings have the right to life, regardless of their location or circumstances. If they are not performing any aggressive action, and pose no physical threat, they should not be killed."

and that is your opinion, and you have a right to it. Just as I have a right to believe that women should have the choice to whether they want to continue with their pg or not.

"It's not about the woman's body. If it were, why not just deliver the embryo/fetus without the dismemberment? "

And some women may choose to do that, and it's perfectly within their rights, as is terminating the pg. Some women choose to have the baby. Again, within their reproductive rights.

tori said...

you have to understand, suzanne. They only way in which I would call myself a feminist is via the definition of choice. Feminism to me is all about having choice. I do get upset when a feminist tells me that by staying @ home with my kids that I'm doing a diservice to the cause. Feminists worked to give me freedom of choice- but just because they did does it give them the authority to dictate to me what that choice or choices should be.

I'm afraid that by saying "Listen, if you're pg, you only have 1 option: carry the pg to term" we would basically wipe out all that hard work that we made to make sure that as women we have CHOICE.

tori said...

"Feminists worked to give me freedom of choice- but just because they did does it give them the authority to dictate to me what that choice or choices should be."

that should be: "just because they did, it does NOT give them the authority..."

see what I mean about debating and dinner? The two do not mix.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I think everyone needs to take a deep breath here and chill out. This is a highly-charged topic. We need to make sure that we're not being judgmental.

It's about trying to accommodate various levels of rights.

Tori, I get the feeling that you really want to protect a 'woman's right to choose', but do you see any possibility that a no-questions asked, publicly-funded policy could lead to some women abusing the system?

tori said...

anyway, I am off. Things need my attention now.

Hopefully this will not end up in the same state as the facebook/cbc fiasco...

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Hopefully this will not end up in the same state as the facebook/cbc fiasco...

lol!

Tori, I really appreciate your participation and your candor. Have a great evening.

jckirlan said...

"I have a problem with late term abortions to be sure, but if a woman wants to have an abortion within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, then that is her call, her body."
Why? What is the difference that happens to the fetus at 12 weeks that is not there before hand? Why doesnt the innocent child that is 11 or 10 or 6 weeks old have the same rights and privledges we give to the egregous, distaeful and violent of our citizens? And why is the child of rape or incest any less of a human than one from product of a loving relationship.Or a trisomy child or one with spina bifida. Are they not Gods creatures and deserving of our vaunted human rights?
Women do have the right to protect there body indeed and the have the right to choose. But the right to choose should be exersized before the act of intercourse in choosing to have sex with a stable partner or not to have sex with someone who won't be around to take care of the child in a nuclear family.
That is where the right to choose lies. Once your pregnant, from day one on, it it the rights of the child.
People like Morgantaller and Rebic are disgusting and disingenuous.They have created and promoted a culture of death. I would like to see any real statistics of these "coathanger abortions" leading to sepsis and death prior to this SC desicion. I 'll bet there were none.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Why? What is the difference that happens to the fetus at 12 weeks that is not there before hand?

Well, personally I see a line between when the fetus is viable outside the uterus, or perhaps when pain can be detected. We wouldn't treat animals so cruelly.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Physicians for Life say that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks.

jckirlan said...

"Well, personally I see a line between when the fetus is viable outside the uterus, or perhaps when pain can be detected."

My mother, without the care of other family memeber safter a stroke was "not viable". Is pain the yardstick to measure worthiness of a human. If so, get ready to start pulling plugs in alot of ICUs and chronic care wards. How about diabetics or lepers or syphylitics who are insensate?
Al I am saying is a life is a life is a life, and as much as I would like to hang the Clifford Olsons of the world, that's wrong as well.

jckirlan said...

"...without the care of other family memeber safter a stroke was "not viable".
= without the care of other family members after a stroke...

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Al I am saying is a life is a life is a life, and as much as I would like to hang the Clifford Olsons of the world, that's wrong as well.

Yeah, good point. Hard to draw a line, that's for sure. And for the record, I'm against capital punishment for that very reason.

jckirlan said...

Sorry, didn't mean to be so aggressive with the defense but after I saw my 6 week old daughter's little heartbeart on ultrasound while inutero, I knew that the "right to choose " was a cunard. This from a completely dumb and naivete man about the issue(and many other aspects of life) prior to her birth..

Raphael Alexander said...

I support capital punishment, but I know it's a legal nightmare and political death warrant. Nobody can tell me Michael Briere deserves to breath our air.

SUZANNE said...

"Suppose the issue weren't about an embryo, but an adult human being shrunken to size and maliciously implanted into a uterus? Would it be okay to kill that adult?"

but a shrunken adult is not comparable to an embryo, clearly. At the very least, an embryo lacks frontal lobes and has a sketchy forbrain at best. This analogy does not work.


Then the issue isn't really about the woman's body, is it? It's about being given the right to kill one's embryo or fetus. If an equal human being were shrunk and put in a uterus, would we have the right to kill that person?

If the issue really were about autonomy, the answer would be: yes.

But that's not the issue. The issue is being able to kill the embryo.

Please define "brain waves".

Electrical impulses produced by the brain.

and that is your opinion, and you have a right to it. Just as I have a right to believe that women should have the choice to whether they want to continue with their pg or not.

You're not confronting the issue. Of course I have a right to my opinion, but you're not addressing what I'm saying.

And some women may choose to do that, and it's perfectly within their rights, as is terminating the pg. Some women choose to have the baby. Again, within their reproductive rights.

Here's the point you're not getting: the fact that abortion is done that way shows it's not about the woman's body. It's about the right to kill an embryo to avoid parenting.

I'll put the issue to you again: would it be okay if the embryo were a shrunken adult? Most people would say no. So what's the difference? The difference is the status of the fetus, not the woman.

That's the real crux of the abortion issue.

I'm afraid that by saying "Listen, if you're pg, you only have 1 option: carry the pg to term" we would basically wipe out all that hard work that we made to make sure that as women we have CHOICE.

Well what's the choice? The choice is killing one's offspring in the name of escaping parenting and depriving human beings of their natural rights.

Some choice.

hunter said...

Back in the old days, 60's, young girls had no birth control, and if they got pregnant, they were "shunned".

Now, we have birth control that is 99.98% effective, and even if that fails, young girls can have a baby without being "shunned". So I ask the feminists, and tori, why is abortion necessary anymore? Why do you insist on living in the 60's?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

If this is the greatest victory for feminists that is pretty sad. Thats why I call them the death cult.
Most women who have abofrtions will tell you that this was not triumph for them


Dr. Roy, I think that was the original intent of this post - that Judy Rebick believes the majority of Canadians have no moral problems with abortion.

I think they have plenty of moral problems with it, but choose instead to cower to the militant pro-lifers who have successfully brainwashed them.

This is a volatile subject though so I'm asking everyone to try to be respectful of other opinions which may differ from yours. I know it's difficult.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

This from a completely dumb and naivete man about the issue(and many other aspects of life) prior to her birth..

Don't sell yourself short, Jckirlan. What you are experiencing is called a 'conscience'. You have experienced the reality of your daughter's existence and it doesn't seem to mesh with what Judy Rebick is trying to make your believe.

You are her father. However if your wife chose to abort her at any point in the pregnancy you couldn't do a thing about it. Thankfully that isn't the case in your family.

Perhaps someday there will be a way to rid women of their unwanted pregnancies and still somehow allow the embryo/fetus/unborn child to continue to develop.

Lawyer Karen Selick calls it the 'transoption solution'.

maryT said...

I wonder what Judy thinks of the woman in England who was diagnosed with cancer when she was 4 months pregnant. She refused an abortion to save her life, refused treatment until her child was able to survive and was born 17 wks early. Baby doing fine, mother died a few wks later. She told her husband that if she had to die, she would live thru her child.

pwerry said...

I've got a proposal. Suppose we determine the range when an embryo gains sentience, take the minimum of that range, and call it the abortion cut off? I'm sure people probably wouldn't have an issue with that. That would be around 3 months.

Gabby in QC said...

If you want to listen to Margaret Somerville interviewed on this topic, go to: http://www.940news.com/members.php (free registration required).
Look for Thursday Jan. 24 @ 11:00 a.m. and go to the 8:20 mark. The interview is about 9 min. long.

Anonymous said...

The discussion gets stuck on 'what stage of development' can the baby in the embrionic or fetal stage be taken out of the womb.
Why is the discussion never about "If you don't want a baby why have sex and get pregnant.?"

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Mary T, that was quite a story wasn't it? Raphael covered it here.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I'm sure people probably wouldn't have an issue with that. That would be around 3 months.

I could live with that, but there would be folks on both sides that couldn't.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Gabby, thanks for the tip! I'll check it out.


Why is the discussion never about "If you don't want a baby why have sex and get pregnant.?"

It's amazing isn't it? In this day and age of an abundance of birth control methods and yet some teenagers are so naive.

Of course, mistakes do happen and kids need to be reminded that nothing is foolproof except abstinence.

Wayward Son said...

hunter said...
Well this women has a moral problem with abortion, it's one of the ten commandments, "Thou shalt not kill".

Wow, you must be a lousy "hunter."

Wayward Son said...

SUZANNE said...
"And many late-term abortions are not counted in the stats because they're coded as stillbirths."

Any evidence of this? It would go completely against Canada's definition of stillbirth which states: "death prior to the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of human conception, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy and which is not an induced termination of pregnancy."

Gabby in QC said...

Joanne, Ms. Somerville is, as usual, her no-nonsense-self in that interview.

As Hunter mentioned in this thread, there are some pretty effective means of contraception available.

Why are women not availing themselves of those means? As that commenter stated, why are some women still living in the 60s?

Why do some of them prefer to use abortion as a means of contraception?
I have cited this example in other threads re: this topic. A well-known Quebec journalist laughed as she off-handedly stated "j'en ai flushé quatre" (I flushed four - [unwanted embryos]). I can understand a first 'mistake', but FOUR!?!

Abortion is a personal choice, as is engaging in sexual activity, as is choosing to use some form of contraception or not.
As such, I am more than willing to have each individual exercise that choice. It is a choice she makes for/by herself, with her conscience, with or without her partner, and she will be the one to answer to her Maker, if she believes in one.

However, since it is an individual choice, DON'T ASK ME TO PAY FOR IT with taxpayers' funds under the guise of a necessary medical procedure. It is a form of elective surgery.

Wayward Son said...

hunter said...
"Now, we have birth control that is 99.98% effective,"

What is this 99.98% effective method of birth control? Considering that male sterilization is only 99.85% effective and female sterilization is 99.5%, then I guess combined male and female sterilization should do the trick. The typical failure rate during first year of use for condoms is 15%. For the pill it is 8%. Even combining those two would therefore be a failure rate of better than 1%.

I can't guarentee the accuracy of any of those numbers as they come from wikipedia, but regardless the failure rate is still higher than most people believe. As Joanne says "nothing is foolproof except abstinence."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods#Effectiveness_of_various_methods


"and even if that fails, young girls can have a baby without being "shunned"."

Agreed. We should shun the unlucky and "dumb" young girls. That il learn em.

"So I ask the feminists, and tori, why is abortion necessary anymore?"

I am not a feminist or a tori, but I suspect that abortion is necessary because of unwanted pregnancies. I would prefer to reduce those unwanted pregancies through better sex education in schools which would reduce the failure rate of birth control methods and through legalization of RU-486 in Canada. However I don't see either of those happening, along with any restrictions of abortion happening in Canada anytime soon no matter which party is in power.

Anonymous said...

wayward son
RU-486 is an abortion pill.
Sex education has been happening for a long time, and has got us where we are today because it was all about the physical, and nothing about the moral.
telling our kids they can't fight it so do it is very insulting. We should be teaching better decision making skills and give them the confidence to control their urges.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Wow, you must be a lousy "hunter."

Ah, an attempt at humour.

Möbius said...

Theoretically, a Canadian woman can decide up until the moment of birth whether or not she wishes to end the life of her child and the taxpayer must fund it, but one minute after birth all that changes and it is suddenly a crime to do so.

Why?


And, again, I ask, how frequently does the "last-minute abortion" occur? Theoretically doesn't cut it.

We can dance on the head of a pin all day, and still I haven't an answer to my question.

Möbius said...

I support capital punishment, but I know it's a legal nightmare and political death warrant. Nobody can tell me Michael Briere deserves to breath our air.

The problem with this is that you predispose that the law/government is always correct in its prosecution. It is not, and is afflicted with all of the explicit errors and prejudices of any system.

How many innocent people are you willing to kill to get the bad guys? 1 in 10?, 1 in 100?

If you're an Ontarian, you may be familiar with the problems of one of our former coroners, allegedly not being quite correct all of the time.

Möbius said...

Physicians for Life say that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks.

a) How the heck would they know?

b) I can't remember being born, likely a nasty and stressful personal event, having witnessed a few.

Wayward Son said...

"Anonymous said...
wayward son
RU-486 is an abortion pill."

I know what it is and I approve of it to reduce surgical abortions and to reduce the time, and therefore gestation of the fetus at the time of abortion. It is legal in most european countries, in some cases for as much as 20 years.

"Sex education has been happening for a long time, and has got us where we are today"

I would hope so. I assume you are referring to the teenage pregnancy rates today which are at least 20% lower than they were 35 years. Yup our sex education has certainly helped us dramatically lower those rates. Of course the abstinence only education in the US has worked wonders, what with their teenage pregnancy rates being DOUBLE ours.

In fact teenage pregnancy rates fell from 48.1/1000 in 1992 to 33.9/1000 in 2002.

In 1974 the rate of teenage pregnancy pregnancy was 43/1000. That is much higher than it is today.

http://www.sexualityandu.ca/parents/puberty-4.aspx

http://www.statcan.ca/english/kits/preg/preg3.htm

http://www.sexualityandu.ca/teachers/data-6.aspx

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/164/3/395-a

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/176/11/1601.pdf

Yup everything is going to hell in a handbasket.

"because it was all about the physical, and nothing about the moral."

Parents can teach morals. I would prefer when it comes to sex education that our schools focus on informing and providing evidence.

"telling our kids they can't fight it so do it is very insulting."

No sex education program tells children that they can't fight it and to "do it." It tells them about their bodies, the risks, and how to protect themselves should they choose to become sexually active. I have never seen any evidence that abstinence only programs delay sexual activity, only that children are less likely to take precautions when they do become sexually active.

"We should be teaching better decision making skills and give them the confidence to control their urges."

Sexual education DOES teach better decision making skills. The extreme drop in teenage pregnancy rates shows this.