Following Dr Roy's and Blue Like You's posts regarding the need for an abortion law in Canada, I would like to chip in, keeping in mind my ignorance of the medical ramifications of the subject.
In principle the case resembles the Yes, Prime Minister scene where the PM consults a prominent banker, Sir Desmond Glazebrook, regarding an appointment to the Bank of England:
PM: I've got to appoint a new Governor of the Bank of England. I'd welcome your views.The absence of a law defining the legal framework for abortion in a civilized country like Canada is laughable. Jonathan Kay rightly points out that the free-for-all system currently in place is fertile territory for actions which to all but the perpetrators and their ilk are undeserving of human nature. Asking the Supreme Court to reverse its decision of deeming abortion a matter of criminal law would set the provinces against each other, particularly regarding trans-border abortions.
Sir Desmond: Well, I certainly think you should appoint one.
So I believe me must deal with the issue federally and take a strong stance. We must tread carefully, though. At the beginning of July a poll showed the Tories losing favor with women voters in battleground provinces. A strict Conservative abortion law would bring the Liberals closer to an election comfort zone.
I am of the opinion that although both mother's and child's rights are extant from conception, the mother's supersede the child's in the first months of pregnancy. Following that, the child supersedes the mother except in her right to life and health. Moreover, as pregnancy is a consequence, if abortions are to be avoided more has to be done to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
An abortion policy emanating from the federal government should therefore not assign the hypothetical right to life to an embryo because, wishful thinking aside, without the mother it is nothing but a pack of cells and is thus at her complete disposal. If one was to be insensitive one could argue it is the mother's property as much as her ovaries, eggs and body. A threshold should be set by policymakers as to when the unborn becomes less dependent on the mother's will. Once past that, the pregnancy should be continued if it doesn't endanger the mother.
The threshold date should depend on the options available post-birth. If the mother were able without penalty to not recognize the child as her own (unwanted pregnancy discovered after the limit) then the limit should be set pretty early. If, instead, such safeguards for the infant's raising by a willing and dedicated mother are not present then more leeway should be given.
All in all the factions must realize that both extreme positions abridge rights. A golden middle ground has to be found based on prevention and safeguard. If the government stepped in to make contraception more broadly available and the populace more aware of its use I would throw my support behind moves to stop financing non-medically dictated abortions. For the cost of an abortion thousands of condoms could be distributed freely or hundreds of women could be provided with birth-control pills independently of medical cover.
If we want to prevent abortions based on the child's sex then we must set the threshold before the gender can be determined. Illegal or homemade abortions would, however, still flourish. Sometimes there's just no winning.
8 comments:
Any suggestion of limits with abortion would have to come from the opposition. Harper clearly said he would never introduce any abortion legislation.
Therefore, it is up to the people to press the issue with their individual MPs.
Is there a legislative right to obtain an abortion in Canada? It might be difficult for some women in less populated areas to find a qualified specialist if most of the local ones are objectors or won't refer the patient to someone who isn't.
This may create a paradox whereby abortion is freely available to those who are lucky enough to find a doctor. But ensuring sufficient non-objector staffing might require legislation on the matter, and then we'd be confronted with limits issues.
Is this situation likely to occur?
I must disagree that an embryo is just a "pack of cells". A "pack of cells" does not have arms, legs, a heart beat and brainwaves.
There are women who've miscarried embryos. Many of them do not consider them a "pack of cells".
Just something to consider.
To answer your question: there is no legislated or court-ordered right to abortion. A certain section of the criminal code was struck down. The Supreme Court said that the state had a right to regulate abortion, especially in the latter stages of pregnancy, as the state's vested in fetal life became greater.
Abortions are down partially because the old guard is retiring and the new brood of medical graduates don't want to do them. There is still a huge stigma attached to abortion. The procedure itself is gruesome, especially in the latter stages.
There is no legislation whatsoever dealing with abortion on the federal level.
Personally, it is my dream to see the government intracardiac injections of potassium chloride. This is a procedure done before the actual abortion itself. It's a late-term procedure. They kill the baby this way to make sure he doesn't make it out alive; that could force the doctors to revive him. In Alberta there is a "resuscitate all babies" protocol after 24 weeks, but that's the only province that I know of with that medical regulation.
What you describe is a barbarism of the worst sort. If it can be successfully revived it is a human being, just as if he had been born prematurely. Late term abortions performed without there being a risk to the mother's health are wholly unacceptable for me.
Although packs of cells don't possess the characteristics you describe, one can't expect to revive or incubate an embryo and expect the procedure to be routinely successful. Foetuses are a different matter altogether, but they're also a later development stage.
24 weeks is already a very late stage, kudos to Alberta.
"All in all the factions must realize that both extreme positions abridge rights."
This sentence and your entire position simply assume the fetus has rights. But it doesn't, not at any stage, and you've failed to establish how and why it could have rights without impinging on the woman's rights. The abortion debate is not about a balancing act; you cannot balance a woman's rights with a fetus's "rights" without actually removing women's constitutional rights. I think the Supreme Court would recognize this today, even if they didn't 20 years ago. Since women's rights are already established and can't be arbitrarily removed, women must have 100% of the rights, and fetuses none. The stage of pregnancy or "viability" of the fetus are completely irrelevant. A fetus becomes viable when a woman decides to carry to term.
Your concern about the need for an abortion law to restrict late-term abortions is misplaced. You're just assuming without evidence that late abortions for non-health reasons occur, but they simply don't after about 22 weeks. Canada's lack of an abortion law has proven that we don't need one at all, because abortion practice happens responsibly without any laws. Any abortion restriction in any country - including a gestational limit - is a violation of women's rights, and an insult to both women and doctors.
Please don't confuse your own personal feelings about the morality of late-term abortion, with what the law should be. The law is not based on the personal opinions of citizens. Even if we don't agree with certain personal decisions when it comes to abortion, that doesn't mean we get to take their's and everyone else's rights away. These difficult, complex private decisions are absolutely none of our business.
If you're really concerned about fetuses, protect the rights of pregnant women, because they are the only fetus caretakers we need. Anti-choice people think they speak for the "unborn" but every fetus already has a highly qualified spokesperson - the pregnant woman herself. No-one, including the state, should have any direct interest in fetuses; society's only proper role is to ensure that pregnant women have all the resources and supports they need for a healthy outcome.
Freedom does know limits, apparently.
Why should there be an abortion law again?
Check Stats Can. 92% of all abortions in Canada occur before 12 weeks, when everyone except ideologue zealots like SUZANNE would agree the fetus is literally nothing but a bundle of cells. Futher, 95% of all abortions occur before 20 weeks, the point at which a fetus has brainwaves. All abortions - yes ALL - after this point are done because the mother's life is in danger or the fetus is severely deformed and non-viable. Even abortion champion and member of the Order of Canada henry Morgantaler won't perform abortions after 24 weeks.
So, what we have in Canada right now, without a law, is exactly what you seem to want - no late term abortions when fetal viability and "humanness" are in question and abortions only when the fetus is nothing more than a blastocyte of zygote - a cluster of cells that is nothing more than a part of the mother's body.
Thus we don't need a law - the women of Canada have already matched your idea "threshold dates" without need for top down enforcement by the state.
I trust the women of Canada to make those decisions, not the government. So far, they have done a great job.
No law needed.
I trust the good will and common sense of all pregnant women, and believe that no-one can oblige them to carry to term. Suzanne isn't a zealot but a person who expresses genuine feelings that a pregnant woman may experience for what could be her child.
As for freedom, even the most libertarians argue that your freedoms stop where my rights begin.
So whats the deal? If late term abortions don't occur save when they are justified, then fine, Canadians are smart and they prove it day after day.
However, abortion isn't necessarily universally accessible. Is that fair on women? Methinks no. A law to guarantee women the right to be referred to a practitioner and obtain the procedure within reasonable distance would increase women's liberty and independence from objectors and local lobbies. That's an abortion law too.
If terms aren't up for discussion then to hell with them. But I'd like to see a law stating that a woman, should she decide not to carry to term without endangering medical conditions should be offered the option to carry to term and not recognize the offspring (thus making the child free for adoption). Does this guarantee exist?
If no then it's unfair to women, who have to resort to the trauma of abortion and it's unfair to the fetus because it's in a bind. That's a law regarding abortion as well.
Post a Comment