Let’s talk about abortion. Wait. Before you turn the page, know that I am not going to advocate a position on the issue. I strongly believe that pro-life or pro-choice is a matter of conscience, but since the vast majority of the online comments I received after the previous column seemed to focus on this topic, I figured there was no better time than the present to write about it and open a dialogue.
To be clear, when I say I want to open dialogue on this topic, I am not advocating that a woman’s right to abortion be criminalized. Whatever my personal feelings on the matter, I do not believe that I have the right to tell another person how to live their own life, so long as their behaviour falls within the realm of the law. I simply mean that we need to talk about designing a better legal definition of what abortion is, and what it should be in this country.
Many Canadians are not aware that Canada currently does not have any abortion laws beyond the point of its decriminalization, and that there are no legal restrictions on when a woman can request and receive an abortion. Though it is rare for doctors to perform abortions past the 20-week mark without a compelling health or genetic reason, officially, an abortion in this country can happen anytime in the nine months between conception and birth.
Canada currently does not have any abortion laws beyond the point of its decriminalization.
Between 2000 and 2009, this lack of any sort of legal framework led to the delivery of close to 500 aborted fetuses that showed evidence of life. These fetuses fall into a strange no-man’s-land, as they must still be examined for vital signs, and if alive, must be treated as live births, even if they are only fated to survive for a few minutes.
Our nation’s lack of restrictions has also led to a practice known as sex-selective abortion. Some cultures value the life of a male child over a female, and have been known to terminate a pregnancy simply because the child would be born a girl.
A reporter from Sun News asked Liberal leader Justin Trudeau about his position on the issue, and he calmly stated that he did not believe in interfering with a woman’s right to choose on this issue, despite the Canadian Medical Journal, the NDP (long advocates of a woman’s right to choose), and public opinion, condemning the practice. Thus we can see the tragic results of an extreme pro-choice position, as this practice undermines the equality of women, even before they are born.
On the other side of the coin, the pro-life assembly is not without its faults. I have heard it argued that women should attempt to deliver a child to term even if there is a high likelihood of mortality for both mother and child. Likewise, I have heard members of this group taking such a hard stance that they would accuse rape victims who choose abortion of infanticide. In my mind, that has as much a place in Canadian society as does sex-selective abortion: none.
As much as I respect Prime Minister Harper for sticking to his pledge not to reopen the abortion debate, this is one vow I desperately wish he would break. With the Trudeau announcement pushing abortion back into the news, the time is ripe for this country to define exactly what abortion should be for Canadians.
I am of the ‘TRUST WOMEN’ generation.
Good luck pulling out of that tailspin.
The whole pro life movement will soon collapse. The scientific fact is that pro lifers have a choice, they may choose to save innocent born babies, children and adults or they may let them die and instead attempt to save a fetus. Pro lifers currently choose to let innocent babies die. A nation that chooses to let its born people die in an effort to save its fetuses cannot stand. For that reason, the pro life movement is doomed to fail. http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com
The scientific laws that apply to abortion control the impact of abortion in all societies. The born citizens of a nation will die because of the nation’s pro life stance. The fact is that there are 1.8 born babies, children and adults dying each second. There are more people dying than can be saved. Therefore, Canada, like all nations, has a choice. It may choose to save innocent born citizens or it may choose to let those citizens die and instead force the birth of fetuses. For years pro lifers have chosen to let innocent citizens die. It is time to face the fact that abortion is controlled by scientific laws that cannot be amended to fit the pro life dogma. The fact is that pro lifers have never saved life and have in fact caused the death of millions. Search Google for “Scientific Abortion Laws.”
What are you talking about? All you have done is copy and pasted some
random decontextualized stats. I checked your “Scientific Abortion Laws”
site… hardly scientific. Have you read our Canadian Criminal code on
abortion? (Specifically sections 223 and 286/7) Now that is not
scientific at all!!! I agree with the author, this is a topic that needs
to be revisited given the advances in science; genetics and
ultrasonography just to name a few. Then we can move forward and stop
this divisive, and often unscientific (or pseudoscientific) nonsense.
No, I didn’t copy and paste anything.
The site is scientific in every sense and also has a debate function. If you see something non-scientific it is likely in the debate area of the page.
A Criminal law is not a scientific law, it is a statute law. The two are not comparable..
The fact is that the Scientific Abortion Laws resolve the issues related to abortion.
The advances in science make it clear that the subject does not need to be revisited.
This is the ONLY science involved in Russell Crawford’s sick position on abortion. Rip appendage off Child in utero=massive blood loss=slow agonizing painful death=murder.
Go to Google Images…Google late term abortion…it explains it all very clearly
You have a choice, you may choose to save innocent babies or you can let them die and attempt to to save a fetus instead. Your choice is to let the babies die.
^ again, fallacy of the false dilemma. Prove to me we are faced with only two choices.
The proof is that there are only two types of human life, born and unborn. If you attempt to save the unborn the born dies and if you attempt to save the born, the unborn dies. So there are only two choices.
The abortion debate cannot be closed solely based on “the advances in science”. The argument is moral and philosophical in nature. The question is : “what is the definition of life?” and “when does life begin?”.
That’s why the above article, “Scientific Abortion Laws” is very subjective. It’s conclusions and the structure of it’s arguments are not logical…it’s actually fallacious…
For example, this statement: “Each individual has a choice, they may save one of the 7 billion born people that are dying or an unborn zygote/embryo/fetus.” has no grounds… it’s actually a false dilemma.
“The abortion debate cannot be closed solely based on “the advances in science”.”
You are a little late, advances in science prove the pro life side is untenable.
“The argument is moral and philosophical in nature.”
The debate used to be of a moral and philosophical nature.
” The question is : “what is the definition of life?” and “when does life begin?”.
Those are nice questions, but off point. The answer to each boils down to a useless matter of opinion. The point that controls the issue now revolves around the fact that it is impossible to save a fetus without causing the death of a born person. It doesn’t matter when life begins, or which definition of life is used. When one spends one second addressing either question, 1.8 born persons die. A person that makes an issue of either question is simply letting innocent life die for no good reason.
“That’s why the above article, “Scientific Abortion Laws” is very subjective. It’s conclusions and the structure of it’s arguments are not logical…it’s actually fallacious…”
It is nice to see you use such terms as tools for an ad hominem attack. Making unfounded arguments and avoiding the issue head on is no way to win a point. If you think there is an illogical point, then address the point. If you think there is a fallacy, then address the fallacy. Otherwise you have wasted your time, the readers’ time and my time.
“For example, this statement: “Each individual has a choice, they may save one of the 7 billion born people that are dying or an unborn zygote/embryo/fetus.” has no grounds… it’s actually a false dilemma.”
If you think it is a false dilemma, then explain how. Simply hiding behind terms you don’t understand will not warrant a response. If you have a point make it.
Any person can see it is not a false dilemma because every person on earth has a choice of whom to save. The dilemma comes with the choice of which to save the fetus or the born life. One cannot save both. So the dilemma is real.
Dustin, you did it. You’ve finally crossed a line.
Firstly, I’d like to point out that this section is called “Opinions” so hiding behind the guise of “I am not going to advocate a position on the issue” is utter bullshit. If you’re going to publish in Opinions, name yours. I think to do otherwise is placing yourself on a moral high ground above every ovary-bearing person on earth.
Now, abortion is a matter of reproductive health and therefore legal abortions in Canada are performed to ensure HEALTH. It is my belief that an abortion — at any point in a pregnancy — would only be performed by health-care practitioners in the best interest of the overall health of those involved. After all, healthy lives are, in theory, the goal of all health-care practitioners.
It’s also important for me to note that your argument about sex-selective abortion is flawed in its assumption that prenatal sex discernment can determine the gender of that child. Also, this issue seems to be more relevant to healthy family planning as opposed to redefining abortion. Choosing to have an abortion based on the likeliness of the fetus’ sex is not wrong because legal abortion is not defined thoroughly enough, it’s wrong because some people value one sex over the other. This misogyny is not unlike the politicians who believe they have a right to decided whether or not women have a right to their own bodies.
Alysha. Firstly, because a male does not share your same opinion does not mean he is elevating himself above every ovary-bearing person on earth (ad hominem). Secondly, “the best interest of the overall health of those involved” what about the unborn child? Is it not a stakeholder in this? As described in our Canadian Criminal Code it is simultaneously described and “a child” but not human… that is a logical inconsistency, not a mere issue of semantics. Our current abortion laws, oh wait there really aren’t any… do need renewed scrutiny. Our criminal code on abortion predates antibiotics for crying out loud! If health really is our goal, perhaps we shouldn’t adhere to health definitions constructed before modern medicine. And, if we are right, and the “unborn child” isn’t human, then why on earth should we flee from a thorough scientific investigation and forum.
To clarify my first point, the author is taking a moral high ground over ovary-bearing people because (unless I am mistaken) the author won’t ever become pregnant. It’s a lot easier to place yourself above an opinion when you don’t need to have one. It’s called privilege.
Also, the word “child” means a young HUMAN so I don’t see a problem with the language in the criminal code. I would say, referring to an unborn child as “it” is far more problematic.
In Canada, an abortion can be performed on anyone by a doctor in the best interest of health care. It’s quite plain and simple. I don’t see how any “renewed scrutiny” on the right to an abortion is necessary.
I stand by my earlier position that the problem that the author brings up is one of culturally pervasive sexism, not abortions.
Alysha, I just wanted to respond to some of your comments. First of all, I did not give my personal stance on the issue of abortion because it was not relevant to the argument I was presenting, which was the need for a discussion on the issue. I am also aware that prenatal sex discernment does not necessarily determine the sex of the child at birth, but it is a reason some groups use for termination of a pregnancy, and while I also agree that the problem is one of culturally pervasive sexism, it is also completely legal in this country.
I am sorry that you think I am taking a moral high ground by having an opinion on abortion, but it does take two people to make a child, and though I will never become pregnant, I do plan on being a father. While I do maintain that a woman has the rights over her body, I also believe that, like any other freedom we have in this country, there has to be some clearly defined rules.
As much as I would like to believe that abortions are performed in the best interests of health care, I also know that that is simply not the cases in many instances, which is why we have private abortion clinics as opposed to the procedure being performed in hospitals.
Finally, I would just ask for clarification on exactly what portion of the article was “crossing the line.”
To the author: If you are “not advocating that a woman’s right to abortion be criminalized”, what exactly are you advocating?
I am advocating that there needs to be restrictions, such as sex-selective abortion, written into our legal system as from a purely legal standpoint, Canada has no restrictions on abortion. I also believe we need to have a serious discussion at governmental levels, as the last serious debate was in the ’80s.
There should be no restrictions at all because: The legal right to abortion has nothing to do with the fetus, and
everything to do with the WOMAN’S right to be secure in her person. Which means abortion should be available regardless of the reason, however frivolous that reason may sound.
Restricting abortion based on the reason is a direct assault on women’s basic rights. Any restrictions will result in “criminalizing women’s right to abortion”. exactly what you are not advocating.
So just to clarify, you would be ok with fetuses aborted because ultrasounds show that they would be born female (even though those can be wrong) as well as partial birth abortions?
Whether I, you, or anyone else is OK with the REASON someone else has an abortion is irrelevant and immaterial.
While we all have our right to approve or disapprove of their reasons (some of which are admittedly frivolous, such as sex-selection), we have absolutely NO right to restrict their right to abortion.
People do a lot of things I don’t like (such as bring screaming kids to restaurants), but I have no right to stop them without infringing on their freedoms.
Kinda dodged the question there, but that is your right. However, I would like to point out that all of the freedoms we enjoy in this country have restrictions placed on them.
The only area where restrictions would be appropriate would be a ban on the pro life ideology that kills born life to save fetuses.
No, personally I don’t think sex selection is a good reason for abortion. However as I said, whether I or anyone else likes the REASON for someone else’s abortion is irrelevant and immaterial.
A woman’s right to be secure in her person should NOT be contingent on any “reason”, or any other factor. She should have that right with no restrictions.
Oh also, freedoms can be restricted ONLY when they impinge on the freedoms of others.
We need to place a restriction on the pro life movement that forces it to save babies before fetuses. Right now pro lifers intentionally let innocent babies, children and adults die so they can save fetuses. That is an unimaginable sin. It needs to stop.
IF the woman believes that a female child will be raped by her father and she chooses to abort for that reason, then she should be capable of aborting legally. By your answer I assume you think women who know their husbands will rape their daughters should not be able to abort, right?
How could a person possibly know that? Does your hypothetical woman have precognition? It’s hard to make an argument based on future events that could happen.
What if her existing girl children were raped/abused by her husband? She is taking an active step to PROTECT future children from the same fate.
Furthermore, when parents don’t want a child for whatever reason, that child is highly unlikely to be loved, cherished and protected as every child should. In certain cultures where discrimination against women is rampant, girl children are not only raped by male relatives but abused by the mothers who didn’t want them in the first place. (Have you seen the documentary Half the Sky?) In such situations, death as a fetus is a far better fate for those girls than a lifetime of abuse.
To force a child onto parents who don’t want them is willful premeditated child abuse.
So you would be fine with a man raping his daughter? In your mind no woman who has her first daughter raped by her husband could surmise he will rape the second.
A nation must kill its born to force the birth of its unborn.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
The only way a person can save a fetus is by letting an innocent baby die. A choice by a nation to follow the pro life creed is a choice to murder its born citizens.
If you are not lying and you can save all the dying babies, then why haven’t you done so already. We need laws that prevent your false logic from causing the death of any more babies.
Of course not… perhaps you should have mentioned other children in your post unless your intention was to be unclear and make me appear callous.
Furthermore, that scenario seems far less a case of sex-selective abortion and more of a case of a problem of child abuse, which should be brought to the attention of the proper authorities.
If abuse was the reason for an abortion, shouldn’t it apply equally to males and females?
A fetus is a human, yes, but so is the woman who carries it – she is a fully grown, undeniably conscious being, whose rights to controlling her own body are in danger of being undermined. When this ‘debate’ is brought up, it makes me feel scared.
This is an example for anyone who wonders what it feels like to have your rights to decide what happens to your body threatened: Right now, no one would ever think about forcing someone to donate a kidney to someone else who needed it to live – that’s YOUR kidney, and you are under no legal obligation to give it to a stranger who will die without it. But what if you were? Further, what if you were then forced to care for the recipient of your kidney for the rest of your life? That you would need to drop out of school, forget about your life plans, and plan on supporting this person (quite possibly on your own) until you died? Really think about that. Your body is only yours until someone else needs it.
What if, in your society, this debate was given serious thought by power-holders, many of whom are under influence of religious opinion on the matter? Perhaps the people who had the loudest opinions happened to not have or need kidneys, and so would not be affected by the outcome of the debate. The time and money spent by the government to fight about your kidneys could have been used to discuss solutions for pervasive social issues such as homelessness.
Wouldn’t you feel like you lived in some kind of weird, alien society? If anyone is going to reopen the abortion debate, let it be women in power who are unaffiliated with any particular religion that takes a moral stance on the issue. Otherwise, the ‘debate’ is just a convoluted, unproductive, value-driven argument.
Until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype there is no human life. One cannot tell if the phenotype is correct until birth. So no, the fetus may or may not have enough human DNA to be human. In fact of the 70 percent of fetuses that die in the first trimester 60 percent are not human enough to live.
It must also be kept in mind that in order to force the birth of a fetus, one must choose to let an innocent baby die.
I agree that there is no need to reopen the abortion debate. I think Dustin’s argument is polemical. In North America a fetus isn’t viable outside the womb before 23 weeks, and then not necessarily even guaranteed normal survival, depending on the situation. So any reason a mother may have to abort before that is 100 A OK. It doesn’t have to be health related at all. Once a fetus is potentially viable, the decision is best left in the hands of the mother in consultation with her physician because there are so many factors at play, including both the health of the mother and the fetus. Far better that late term abortions are managed by skilled physicians than by backroom abortionists, or by the mothers alone themselves. Moreover, as Dustin himself notes, they are rare.
A nation that kills its born babies to save its fetuses cannot stand.