How is Canada doing on abortion rights?
Fri, 2008-07-25 04:09
#1
How is Canada doing on abortion rights?
Fri, 2008-07-25 04:09
#2
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/in_her_own_words.shtml?x=73715]Abortion rights: How are we doing, Canada?[/url]
quote:
So where to go from here? The latest Angus-Reid poll revealing that only 49 per cent of Canadians believe that abortion should remain legal under any circumstances shows us that the battle is not over yet.In fact, I really don’t like to think of basic human rights like abortion as only battles, or movements, or current affairs we have to deal with.
We should always be there to support people having rights over their own bodies. The truth of it all is that the moment we stop supporting these rights, they go away.
Fri, 2008-07-25 06:28
#3
Having read the poll information on the angus reid website i find this even more interesting than the stat quoted in the first post
quote:
Conversely, 42 per cent of respondents would allow the procedure only under certain circumstances, while five per cent would make abortion illegal in all circumstances.
According to data in the polling results 91% of respondants are in favour of abortion in Canada. Only 5 % responded that abortion should be illegal under all circumstances.
Therefore it is this 42 percent that need to be messaged because it can be hypothesized that many of them when questioned keep abortion or get rid of abortion rights would answer keep it.
here is the polling data from the angus reid site.
quote:
Polling DataDo you think abortion should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?
Abortion should be legal under any circumstances
49%Abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances
42%Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances
5%Not sure
3%
Source: Angus Reid Strategies
Methodology: Online interviews with 1,003 Canadian adults, conducted on Jun. 4 and Jun. 5, 2008. Margin of error is 3.1 per cent.Other poll highlights:
46% believe abortion should be permitted in all cases
43% say the health care system should fund abortions whenever they are requested
53% want women under the age of 18 to have parental consent in order to have an abortion
[url=http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/31032/half_of_canadians_want_aborti... reid[/url]
Fri, 2008-07-25 07:12
#4
remind
So only 5% of Canadians think abortions should be illegal. But yet they are spinning it differently!
Fri, 2008-07-25 08:49
#5
So that's still quite a large amount of people whio want to limit women's control over their bodies.
Fri, 2008-07-25 09:56
#6
quote:
Abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances 42%
Who are these 42 percent and who are they to determine under what circumstances abortion should be legal?
Fri, 2008-07-25 10:12
#7
Well Stargazer I guess they figure its their body and not yours
Fri, 2008-07-25 10:22
#8
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]Who are these 42 percent and who are they to determine under what circumstances abortion should be legal?[/b]
I disagree that it should be okay if the fetus is past viability. This is the way the law is formulated in most of Europe. That said, this affects a very small proportion of abortion demand and the woman should still be able to have the fetus removed whenever she decides.
That is my understanding of the 42% - or how I myself view the issue. However, overall this isn't much of an issue due to the rarity. I would like to see the change so that it cannot be used as a red herring by anti-choicers and to ensure that fetuses that are viable human beings on their own are not being destroyed.
All of that said, abortion after this stage would probably disappear if access was improved across the country.
[url=http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/index.cfm?sid=150146&sc=98]Here is the situation in my province[/url]
Fri, 2008-07-25 10:25
#9
a more accurate poll would be one that asked Abortion Legal or Abortion Illegal.
Using the data provided it is 91 % legal 5% illegal.
I think that this is a great number.
Fri, 2008-07-25 11:42
#10
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]Who are these 42 percent and who are they to determine under what circumstances abortion should be legal?[/b]
Exactly, it is no one else's business but the woman's.
Fri, 2008-07-25 11:48
#11
quote:
Originally posted by Prophit:
[b]Well Stargazer I guess they figure its their body and not yours[/b]
How be you just stay completely out of the feminism forum from now on. Or else you're gone.
Fri, 2008-07-25 11:50
#12
i may have missed this in the polling data but it appears that they polled men and women.
I wonder how a similar women only poll would be responded to.
Do men push the results one way or the other?
Fri, 2008-07-25 12:22
#13
remind
Of course men would push the poll one way or the other. But really it doesn't matter, as it is no one else's business but the woman's who is making her own choices.
[ 25 July 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
Fri, 2008-07-25 23:26
#14
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]Of course men would push the poll one way or the other. But really it doesn't matter, as it is no one else's business but the woman's who is making her own choices.[ 25 July 2008: Message edited by: remind ][/b]
Yes, it is business of the murderer and the victim only.
Sat, 2008-07-26 04:21
#15
Maysie
bob9999 is banned.
Sat, 2008-07-26 05:38
#16
Just in case it's not clear, since I've had a question about this by private mail - abortion is not up for debate on babble, anywhere on babble. And the feminism forum is for protected space for feminists (and since, over the years, we've had this fight so many times, when we say "feminists" we mean "pro-choice feminists"), so any opposition to abortion, or disparaging comments about women or abortion providers, is strictly not allowed.
Sun, 2008-07-27 10:25
#17
I've been reading an interesting book called [i]The politics of abortion[/i], which discuses (at least the part I'm at) what the master narrative was- and unlike in the USA where abortion is an issue of individual rights, in Canada it was a concern over Doctors getting prosecuted for providing abortion they believed their patients needed. The individual rights debates or the socioeconomic side of it was not dominant. Medicalizing the debate avoided the controversial debate that we today call pro-life/pro-choice debate.
MP's and the government have frequently stated that they wish to avoid opening the debate, as if it was a settled issue. But with bill c-484 and the continuing efforts of what apparently is a small minority to get abortion banned, and another chunk of the Canadian population in a sort of middling-against position it's clear it is not. Just because you can't see something doesn;t mean it's not there. So good debate in the public eye on this issue in a is really necessary- women's well- being is at stake.Would that some (i.e many Liberals and Conservatives) politicians weren't so worried about getting elected.
[ 27 July 2008: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]
Sun, 2008-07-27 10:52
#18
"Who are these 42 percent and who are they to determine under what circumstances abortion should be legal?"
These 42 percent are regular, everyday men and women who think abortion shouldn't be available anywhere up to passing the baby through the birth canal. This doesn't have anything to do with restricting females access to abortion.
Andrew Coyne wrote a very interesting article in McCleans about this topic.
"Alone among developed countries, Canada has no abortion law. Is 'settling' for a non-decision any way for a democracy to behave?"
[url=http://www.macleans.ca/canada/national/article.jsp?content=20080709_1121...
Sun, 2008-07-27 11:14
#19
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Pride for Red Dolores:[b] So good debate in the public eye on this issue in a is really necessary- women's well- being is at stake.[/b]
Respectfully, I disagree. I believe that all that needs to be said and done is that it needs to be well stated, often, that women cannot be compelled to give their body into the service of another person, for any reason, and that what a woman does with her own body is NO ONE else's business.
Sun, 2008-07-27 11:35
#20
Maysie
quote:
Originally posted by kim2:
[b]Andrew Coyne wrote a very interesting article in McCleans about this topic.[/b]
I think that Andrew Coyne's opinion on abortion will have credibility when Andrew Coyne has to face the decision about having an abortion. But not before then.
Ah, Maclean's! That bastion of pro-woman and pro-feminist thought and theory!
From the article, re Morgentaler and the OC:
quote:
Members of Parliament spoke out against it by the dozen.
Wow! By the [i]dozen[/i] you say?!? Hold still so I can count all of you!
quote:
Several members of the Order returned their pins.
Yeah, the child-abusing priest who's currently under investigation, that's such as loss.
How interesting indeed that Mr. Coyne is [i]so very[/i] concerned with the way in which the abortion laws were struck down [b]20 frikkin years ago[/b]. The right has had all this time to weasel around. Hmm, the timing, what's that about? Harper, you think? And Bill C-484? Were the Liberals not conservative enough on this issue, were the big tough conservatives like Coyne [i]too scared[/i] to bring this up when the Liberals were in power? What-the-fuck-ever. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Sun, 2008-07-27 12:06
#21
remind
Kimi I believe you were asked, to stay the hell out of discussions regarding woman's rights to choose. But I leave that to Michelle to deal with and will respond to your post.
quote:
Originally posted by kim2:
[b]Andrew Coyne wrote a very interesting article in McCleans about this topic."Alone among developed countries, Canada has no abortion law. Is 'settling' for a non-decision any way for a democracy to behave?"[/b]
It is the only way for a democracy to behave, in actual fact, as it is acknowledging woman's full equality in not being forced/compelled to give her body into the service of another.
Sun, 2008-07-27 13:23
#22
quote:
Originally posted by Pride for Red Dolores:
[b]So good debate in the public eye on this issue in a is really necessary- women's well- being is at stake.[/b]
Did we ever have a really good debate as to why people shouldn't be allowed to voluntarily sell themselves as slaves to others?
I certainly don't recall one.
Let's have that debate. After all, people's well-being is at stake.
And what about sodomy? It was decriminalized in 1968, but was there really a broad public debate? I don't recall one either. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Let's have that debate now. After all, the well-being of queers is at stake.
How am I doing, Pride?
Mon, 2008-07-28 06:36
#23
remind
Exactly unionist, thanks for pointing this out, even though it should've been glarringly obvious that women's rights to self determine what is right for themselves, should not be up for debate, in any manner.
Mon, 2008-07-28 07:08
#24
quote:
Originally posted by johnpauljones:
[b]i may have missed this in the polling data but it appears that they polled men and women.I wonder how a similar women only poll would be responded to.
Do men push the results one way or the other?[/b]
The complete polling results, including breakdowns between female and male responses, can be found [url=http://www.angus-reid.com/uppdf/2008.06.20_Abortion.pdf]here[/url]. Below I repeat the gender breakdowns. I believe that the male and female responses are within the margin of error of each other.
The gender breakdowns are as follows:
Question: What is your personal feeling about abortion?
1. Abortion should be permitted in all cases. F 44%. M 48%.
2. Abortion should be permitted, but subject to greater restrictions than now. F 21%. M 17%.
3. Abortion should be permitted only in cases such as rape, incest and to save the woman's life. F 24%. M 20%.
4. Abortion should only be permitted to save the woman’s life. F 5%. M 8%.
5. Not sure. F 6%. M 7%.
Question: Do you think abortion should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?
1. Abortion should be legal under any circumstances. F 50%. M 48%.
2. Abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances. F 42%. M 43%.
3. Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. F 5%. M 6%.
4. Not sure. F 4%. M 2%.
Question: In Canada, abortions are provided on request to Canadian citizens and permanent residents, and are funded by the health care system. Which of these statements comes closer to your own point of view?
1. The health care system should fund abortions whenever they are requested. F 42%. M 44%.
2. The health care system should only fund abortions in the event of medical emergencies. F 45%. M 44%.
3. The health care system should not fund abortions at all. F 4%. M 4%.
4. Not sure. F 9%. M 8%.
Question: In your view, should women under the age of 18 require the consent of their parents or legal guardians in order to have an abortion?
1. Yes. F 53%. M 53%.
2. No. F 35%. M 37%.
3. Not sure. F 12%. M 11%.
[ 28 July 2008: Message edited by: Martha (but not Stewart) ]
Mon, 2008-07-28 08:12
#25
Interesting. Looks like the men are a tad more progressive on this issue than the women (according to the poll).
Mon, 2008-07-28 08:25
#26
I don't think that a woman's right to self-determination is up for debate either. My point is that we have no abortion law and we should have one to ensure women's acess to abortion.But this won't happen so long as the government is scared shootless to adress the issue. A lack of acess does affect women's well-being.
These debates are already going on, they're just not reported by the media.
[ 28 July 2008: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]
[ 28 July 2008: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]
Mon, 2008-07-28 08:48
#27
quote:
Interesting. Looks like the men are a tad more progressive on this issue than the women...
Well, Stargazer, I guess that's easy enough when it's women's bodies and not theirs that bear the brunt of "sexual liberation". [img]mad.gif" border="0[/img]
I have often noticed that the right to abortion was by far the one that elicited the most support among even midly progressive men. Make no mistake, I entirely and actively spport that right.
But looking at the one woman's issue that men usually champion in the light of those that they don't, I have to acknowledge that the (unrealized) promise of abortion on demand still makes it somewhat easier for men - in their mind, at least - to insist on sex on demand, not use contraception and not take responsibility for accidental offspring. Which I think is part of the reason to choose this issue to champion and pass on others. So, "progressive"...? I am not sure.
[ 28 July 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Mon, 2008-07-28 09:09
#28
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Pride for Red Dolores:[b]I don't think that a woman's right to self-determination is up for debate either. My point is that we have no abortion law and we should have one to ensure women's acess to abortion. [/b]
No, actually, you do believe it is up for debate, as you believe there should be abortion laws.
What are you failing to get about any abortion laws = impingement upon a woman's Charter Right to NOT be compelled to give their body into the service of another person? That is what self-determination is, NOT being compelled in anyway, shape, or form to give one's body/self into the service of another person, for any reason!
quote:
[b]But this won't happen so long as the government is scared shootless to adress the issue. [/b]
There is NO issue that needs addressing!
quote:
[b]A lack of acess does affect women's well-being.[/b]
Access has nothing to do
with abortion laws, and everything to do with Universal Access in the Health Act and its not being enforced. And that is the actual, and only, issue, that needs to be addressed.
ETA: A response to the edited add on, of:
quote:
These debates are already going on, they're just not reported by the media.
What debates, with whom, and about? And how dare they debate a woman's Charter Rights!
[ 28 July 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
Mon, 2008-07-28 09:13
#29
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b] No, actually, you do believe it is up for debate, as you believe there should be abortion laws.
What are you failing to get about any abortion laws = impingement upon a woman's Charter Right to NOT be compelled to give their body into the service of another person? That is what self-determination is, NOT being compelled in anyway, shape, or form to give one's body/self into the service of another person, for any reason![/b]
A law protecting fetuses that are at or past viability would not infringe on a woman's right to not be compelled to give her body in the service of another person for any reason. As long as the woman has the choice to have it removed when SHE CHOOSES.
Martin, I agree with you. I think a certain percentage are progressive, but a lot of men probably see it as an easier way to have zero responsibility when it comes to sex, to not have to use contraception and to not be on the hook for child support.
Mon, 2008-07-28 09:16
#30
I agree with remind. An "abortion law" couldn't decree accessibility - as the unimplemented Canada Health Act is supposed to do for an acknowledged essential medical service. It could and would only decree any number of conditions conditions allowing the State or any doctor or a would-be father to deny access to a woman. This is how such laws function in other countries - decreeing a cut-off gestation period, for instance, or any kind of rigmarole (such as mandatory counseling or parental approval) that a woman gets forced into before being allowed the service. More to the point, this is how such laws they are argued for here when people throw up scare scenarios - e.g. abortions at 8 1/2 months - to get people to nod their heads saying "There oughta be a law!", which leads to Ghislaine saying that abortions should be outlawed past foetal "viability" and not acknowlewdging that this contradicts women's choice.
[ 28 July 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Mon, 2008-07-28 09:30
#31
Catchfire
We have an "abortion law." It's in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Mon, 2008-07-28 09:37
#32
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b] So, "progressive"...? I am not sure.[/b]
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.
Mon, 2008-07-28 09:42
#33
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]I agree with remind. An "abortion law" couldn't decree accessibility - as the unimplemented Canada Health Act is supposed to do for an acknowledged essential medical service. It could and would only decree any number of conditions conditions allowing the State or any doctor or a would-be father to deny access to a woman. This is how such laws function in other countries - decreeing a cut-off gestation period, for instance, or any kind of rigmarole (such as mandatory counseling or parental approval) that a woman gets forced into before being allowed the service. More to the point, this is how such laws they are argued for here when people throw up scare scenarios - e.g. abortions at 8 1/2 months - to get people to nod their heads saying "There oughta be a law!", which leads to Ghislaine saying that abortions should be outlawed past foetal "viability" and not acknowlewdging that this contradicts women's choice.[ 28 July 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ][/b]
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".
Mon, 2008-07-28 10:06
#34
remind
Gah! I do not know whether you are being deliberately obtuse, are seriously failing to see what is entailed, or think that others are stupid, and can't see the full spectrum themselves, ghislaine.
Anyhow, there is NO discussion warranted, excpet for increased access.
Mon, 2008-07-28 10:18
#35
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]Gah! I do not know whether you are being deliberately obtuse, are seriously failing to see what is entailed, or think that others are stupid, and can't see the full spectrum themselves, ghislaine.Anyhow, there is NO discussion warranted, excpet for increased access.[/b]
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.
Mon, 2008-07-28 10:22
#36
remind
I guess it is choice b) then.
Mon, 2008-07-28 10:28
#37
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]Access has nothing to do with abortion laws, and everything to do with Universal Access in the Health Act and its not being enforced. And that is the actual, and only, issue, that needs to be addressed.[/b]
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.
Mon, 2008-07-28 10:39
#38
quote:
Ghislaine: 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.
Yes, many of the things you said do just that. You want to "ensure that fetuses that are viable human beings on their own are not being destroyed". You "disagree that it should be okay if the fetus is past viability". You want "a law protecting fetuses that are at or past viability". All of these (repetitive) statements contradict a woman's free choice to abort - even if you nonsensically pretend that it doesn't because her CHOICE trumps fetal rights - past such an entirely questionable deadline. Questionable because some people would sadistically argue that even a one-hour embryo is viable on its own if one toys with the definition of "on its own". I know *you* don't but, for the woman involved, a one hour or 23 weeks cutoff point of her rights amounts to the same NO!
And most Canadians - including legislators - won't have that.
[ 28 July 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Mon, 2008-07-28 11:00
#39
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b] Yes, many of the things you said do just that. You want to "ensure that fetuses that are viable human beings on their own are not being destroyed". You "disagree that it should be okay if the fetus is past viability". You want "a law protecting fetuses that are at or past viability". All of these (repetitive) statements contradict a woman's free choice to abort - even if you nonsensically pretend that it doesn't because her CHOICE trumps fetal rights - past such an entirely questionable deadline. Questionable because some people would sadistically argue that even a one-hour embryo is viable on its own if one toys with the definition of "on its own". I know *you* don't but, for the woman involved, a one hour or 23 weeks cutoff point of her rights amounts to the same NO!
And most Canadians - including legislators - won't have that.[ 28 July 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ][/b]
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.
Mon, 2008-07-28 11:09
#40
remind
How about you fuck off with your [i]rather than killed,[/i] BS Ghislaine? Frankly, I am really sick and tired of your anti-choice BS here. In fact, I know you are being deliberately obtuse, at best.
[ 28 July 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
Mon, 2008-07-28 11:11
#41
quote:
Originally posted by Ghislaine:
[b]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.[/b]
Well then, Ghislaine - and please listen carefully - would you like to see viable foetuses included in the same law that currently protects preemies?
Mon, 2008-07-28 11:18
#42
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Well then, Ghislaine - and please listen carefully - would you like to see viable foetuses included in the same law that currently protects preemies?[/b]
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.
Mon, 2008-07-28 11:42
#43
remind
Request is sent to moderators to remove ghislaine from this thread and forum, at the least.
Mon, 2008-07-28 11:51
#44
Done.
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.
Mon, 2008-07-28 12:52
#45
Im posting this and then you can ban me, i understand.
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
Mon, 2008-07-28 13:00
#46
quote:
Originally posted by leavingsoon:
[b]First of all, it's disgusting to me that any person male or female would advocate abortions at any stage of pregnancy. [/b]
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.
Mon, 2008-07-28 13:02
#47
remind
quote:
Originally posted by leavingsoon:
[b]Im posting this and then you can ban me, i understand.[/b]
You are ignorant, rude and a liar.
quote:
[b]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,[/b]
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!
quote:
[b]Anyway, its too bad people can't talk about these issues here, i know this is a bastion of feminist thought only.[/b]
Fuck you, the loss of Charter equality rights are NOT up for debate here, nor should they be anywhere else!
quote:
[b] Rightfully so, it's your house, but that still doesn't make your ideas reasonable or ethical.[/b]
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.
quote:
anywhoo, sorry if i bothered anyone, ill be leavingsoon[/QB]
Passive agggressive lie.
[ 28 July 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
Mon, 2008-07-28 14:42
#48
Oh, it's not a lie. It's true. leavingsoon is leavingsoon. Actually, now.
Tue, 2008-07-29 09:00
#49
With regards to access, this is something that has been delegated to the provinces, so wouldn;t it be a question sof each provinces enforecment practices ? Since I really don't agree with the idea of abortion being dealt with by criminal law, federally that would mean a hodge podge of provicial laws...
[ 29 July 2008: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]
Tue, 2008-07-29 09:18
#50
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Pride for Red Dolores:[b]With regards to access, this is something that has been delegated to the provinces, so wouldn;t it be a question sof each provinces enforecment practices ? [/b]
Yes, and no, the federal government can insist that the Canada Health Act universal access criteria has to be met by each and every province, or transfer payments for health care could be held back.
quote:
[b]Since I really don't agree with the idea of abortion being dealt with by criminal law, [/b]
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?
quote:
[b]federally that would mean a hodge podge of provicial laws...[/b]
This really makes no sense.
And there is NO hodge podge of provincial laws, nor would there be under any circumstance, actually!
Tue, 2008-07-29 16:44
#51
quote:
Yes, and no, the federal government can insist that the Canada Health Act universal access criteria has to be met by each and every province, or transfer payments for health care could be held back.
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 ]