Chatelaine attempts to restart "the abortion debate"

martin - not forcibly removed but removed at the behest and choice of the woman.

Quote:

 feather sky, where did I write that a woman does not own her body at all times or that she is under an obligation to bring a fetus to term or to 9 or 10 months? I never once wrote that a woman should not have full control of her own body at all times.

Quote:

"I don't support killing fetuses that have reached the age of viability outside the womb (somewhere around 24 weeks)"

I'm not sure how else one is supposed to interpret this. To me this suggests not having full control.
Perhaps, if you added the disclaimer, 'for me personally', before your anti-choice BS.

Then you would make it clear that you are merely judging others that make that choice in a condescending manner, as opposed to suggesting the state make that decision for women.

Quote:

Michelle, I find anti-free speech views offensive - but I should have addressed this directly with feather sky.

Well, then I'll be sure not to make such abrasive posts in the forum dedicated to Free Speech.
Perhaps you should also champion the ability of people to yell Fire in a crowded theatre since you are such a champion of free speech and find such restrictions so burdensome.

remind wrote:

No it is not valid actually, and I cannot believe you would try to float that prolife crap here timebandit.

What pro-life crap was that?  That some women, as evidenced by Ghislaine's posts and Michelle's post, support choice while still feeling some internal conflict with it?  From what I see, choice is still supported.  You can't limit your numbers to the purists and expect to maintain the rights that we have.  Many women go through the sort of evolution Michelle talked about over time.  Alienate them at the outset and you stand to squash potential allies. Suggesting you and Feather Sky drop the overheated rhetoric is absolutely valid.

If there was some other pro-life crap that I'm missing, please do point it out in better detail.

I'm sorry Michelle but you seem to be giving up too much ground.  Ghislaine's posts make me ill on this topic and I thought we weren't supposed to be subjected to them anymore.

I don't support compelling women to do anything with their bodies that they don't want to. My purpose here was to re-iterate the only thing I have ever said that has been characterized as anti-choice. If a woman is going in for a late-term abortion and induced labour is occuring as part of this, than perhaps the fetus should be kept alive rather then killed. As long as this does not affect the woman's choice and she has no responsibilities, any additional bodily discomfort, etc. That is all. This is a very rare and hypothetical situation and I repeated it only because so many here keep calling me anti-choice for that viewpoint. I never said that women should be forced into anything that they don't want to do.

Denying that there is a debate out there won't make it go away. I think we need to be able to discuss openly every last anti-choice argument and declare why they are irrelevant to a woman controlling her own body - and this right being legally recognized.

Michelle - why do you write that you "really shouldn't admit this here..."?  Can we not discuss openly the philosophical and scientific issues present in this debate? Stating facts about the stages of fetal development should not be construed as anti-choice. Why cede that aspect of the debate as ultrasound technology improves rapidly and this is obviously going to be used to justify an anti-choice position?  I would also like to be able to discuss the various ways that choice is still limited. For one, access. Two, a woman in poverty is not going to feel like she has much of a choice with the current situation of social supports, daycare, etc., will she? Men pressure women into abortions as well - saying they will never get child support out of them or they will break up with them or whatever­. A lot of women in my experience are 100% pro-choice, but feel as Michelle did when pregnant. To me, this just strengthens the argument that it must be a woman' choice, not the state's.

Why don't we re-open the debate about whether or not women are persons while we are at it and whether women should be allowed to vote or go to university.

Let's keep everything on the table in the name of free speech.

Ghislaine, the point is, that actually doesn't HAPPEN.  Fetuses aren't "born living" during abortions, even late term abortions.  So there's no real need to discuss whether late term abortions should be put on life support or whatever.  An abortion is just that - an abortion.  The only time abortions are done on very late term fetuses is when there is something so wrong with them that they're not viable.  So this is a "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" kind of argument.

remind, chill out.  I don't see anything that Ghislaine has said in this thread that requires her to leave the discussion, nor are you a moderator.  As you can see, there's a moderator already watching this thread, and we discuss any potential problems together.  Remember what we were saying in the other threads?  About how everyone feels like they're perfectly justified in ignoring the rule about personal attacks when they're angry? 

Feather Sky, no one is claiming that women shouldn't be allowed to have abortions, nor is anyone arguing that women should not be able to vote or go to university. 

Is there an applause Smiley on Babble? If there is Michelle's post deserves it.

Ghislaine's first line in post #64 sounds pro-choice to me.

Parenthtically, cutting and pasting really bites with the latest Babble "improvement."

Are you?

martin dufresne wrote:

By that logic, Chantale Daigle - whose fetus was normal - should have be denied her right to abort.

This is why I am saying that some folks here are trying to back-pedal us rightward from the SCC decision.

It's the women's choice, period, because her fundamental right to security is at stake. I do not support legislating regular inquisitorial procedures as to why an abortion happens past a certain date and which ones are justifiable according to some legislator.

Your first line:  How do you figure that?  I didn't say she should have been denied her right to abort - I would just put her into the category of the extremely rare.  And it wouldn't surprise me that many women simultaneously supported her right to abort and felt conflicted about it.  So no-one's saying it isn't the woman's choice, period.

I understand your concern, Martin, that if we simply argue that late term abortions hardly ever happen and usually only when the life of the fetus or mother is threatened, that this could open the door to people demonizing women who, in those very rare cases, decide to have a very late term abortion for other reasons of her own.

Personally, I think abortions are always the decision of the woman's, throughout the whole pregnancy.  But in order to counter those ridiculous thought experiment debates where people say, "Okay, so then what if it's a week before her due date and the fetus is perfectly healthy?  Do you support abortion THEN?  What about a minute before you give birth?  Is abortion okay THEN?  Well then where do you draw the line?" you have to eventually tell people that this is a stupid line of argument because it NEVER HAPPENS.   Abortion doctors DON'T perform abortions on healthy 8.5 month fetuses.  Sure, it's technically legal to do so, but it never happens.  It's technically legal to do lots of stuff medically that never happens. 

And I think that is a good answer to give to people who come up with imaginary scenarios (or might be troubled by imaginary scenarios they've heard from anti-choice propaganda).  Your scenario doesn't happen, but if it ever did, there would be some kind of extenuating circumstance involved, and ultimately, it's up to every woman to decide for herself, even if that means that your thought experiment has an uncomfortable resolution.

Timebandit used the word "usually", Martin. That does not mean "always" and implies there are other examples other than the "usual". She is using "usual" in a statistical sense.

martin dufresne wrote:

Timebandit,

Daigle's was a late-term abortion. Her fetus did not present any problem. You argued that "late term abortions are usually undertaken because of severe problems in the fetus' health and viability, not the "wanted-ness" of the pregnancy". I submit that this works as an implicit criterion and risks sabotaging the legality of late-term abortions undertaken because the pregnancy is unwanted.

The fact that some women are conflicted about abortion should never serve to undercut their fundamental right to it. (Many women are also conflicted about marriage!)

Are you telling me, then, that we should have a moratorium on the discussion of marriage?  That the reasons some women feel conflicted about it are just not permitted and are so beyond the pale they have no place in discussion?

There was no criterion implied by me.  If you see things that aren't there, it's not my responsibility.  I believe the word "usually" should indicate that I am not being absolute in the first place, and I'd challenge you to show me some evidence that what I said isn't true - because most of what I've read bears out that vast majority late-term abortions are related to screenings for such things as Down's syndrome and other fetal abnormalities.  So Daigle aside, do you have anything other than a very rare case from 20 years ago regarding women's choice that was supported in the courts and by all participating in the discussion?  Because we've all said it's the woman's choice.

My point was, and I'll reiterate for the hard of listening, that there are still some people who feel conflicted about such choices - and while those shouldn't have any bearing on access whatsoever, silencing people is seldom persuasive.

martin, there is no opposition.  It is entirely in your head.  No rights were sacrificed in the making of this post.

If a situation is statistically insignificant, then legislation, which already fully supports a woman's right to choose without caveats, does not need to be altered. 

I understand where you're coming from, Martin.  I know what you mean, that if we simply stop at the argument that "it hardly ever happens so it's irrelevant" then it could be interpreted as giving up ground because we're not arguing that it doesn't matter if it DOES happen.

I probably wasn't clear about it above, but my answer to such questions about late term abortions is that they hardly ever happen for any reason other than health problems for either the mother or fetus, but on that very rare occasion when it does, it's really nobody's business but the woman's because it is her body, and everything in her body is part of her body. 

I think it's easier to convince people of that if you actually say it, though, rather than just tell them that they're anti-choice, they suck, and you're never speaking to them again, and by the way, they're also guilty of hate speech and should be prosecuted.

The point remains, that nothing needs to be altered from the first point of understanding that; women have the absolute right to self determine, full stop, so there need not be any discussion/debate/debate about having a discussion, surrounding any statistically insignificant situations in the first place. Nor any other thing that people can try to throw in as "something" to discuss. To enter into any form of discussion is to give it validity when it has absolutely none.

For example, any discussion about people "feeling torn" , or "horrified", is empty, pointless and an invasion of privacy, as well as a denial of freedom of conscience, actually. As so what if others are/were "feeling torn"? It is not about them, and how they are feeling about another woman's business. It is none of their business to even consider anything about it at all, let alone make pronouncement that they "feel torn", as indeed by doing so, they are pronouncing some form of judgement, as a judging process compared to oneself, has gone on, in order to come up torn feelings. 

It can correctly be seen, that people, who feel they are justified in examining their emotions, about  someone else's abortion, and then determine that their emotions about it are valid, have inserted themselves  into the situation parameters and are wrongfully making an equation including themselves. There is no equation,  and there should not be, any inclusion of themselves, there is only a solitary number of 1. One woman deciding to do whatever it is she wants.   As such, other's personal "feelings" should not be validated in anyway, and discussing someone's feelings, as if it has validity, wrongly gives the impression that it does, and  indeed should. It doesn't and shouldn't.

Thank you Michelle for your comments above. I know that the situation I described is extremely rare and I only mentioned in the context of re-iterating the fact that I am pro-choice. There is currently a woman in FL suing a doctor because her fetus was born alive and placed in the garbage can. It is rare, but it has happened. In no way, shape or form should a woman be forced to do anything with her body she does not want to do.

I think there are some misconceptions here though. A pregnant woman in Canada right now [url=http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1094935301055_7?hub=... cannot get an abortion at any time in her pregnancy [/url] - when there are supposed to be no legal obstacles.

Quote:

Dozens of Canadian women who must travel to the United States for controversial abortions when they're about six months pregnant and beyond may soon have an option closer to home.

Quebec health officials said they are hopeful a newly trained doctor will set up practice in the province next year, offering a service that even staunch pro-choice Canadian doctors like Henry Morgentaler refuse to provide for ethical reasons.

"The right to an abortion is well-recognized in Quebec and Canada," Cathy Rouleau, a spokeswoman for Quebec Health Minister Philippe Couillard, said Friday.

"We have an obligation to get a patient the help that she needs."

Canadian women currently travel to Colorado, Kansas and Washington each year to have late-term abortions because no Canadian doctor will perform them.

The stateside procedures are paid for by provinces including British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, where 85 per cent of about 105,000 abortions in Canada are performed each year. Each late-term abortion costs about $5,000 US.

Morgentaler said he has concerns about late-term abortions.

"We don't abort babies, we want to abort fetuses before they become babies," Morgentaler said from his Toronto clinic.

"Around 24 weeks I have ethical problems doing that."

Morgentaler said the late-term abortions are mainly performed on women who have learned of severe birth defects during tests performed late in pregnancy and on teenage girls who have tried to hide their pregnancy.

"What we do at our clinics is if we have a problem like that we usually council the woman to continue the pregnancy and put it up for adoption if she is unable to care for it," he said.

 

Last year in Quebec, 30 women travelled to the United States for abortions after they were 22 weeks pregnant. About 31,000 abortions are performed in Quebec each year.

Morgentaler said about 15 women make the trip from Ontario each year. A British Columbia health department official said no statistics are kept but the province sends a handful of women to Washington every week.

A Statistics Canada survey of abortions in 2001 showed 96.7 per cent were completed before 16 weeks of pregnancy.

Quebec Health Minister Philippe Couillard defended the late-term abortions, saying the decision isn't made lightly by women and their doctors. Abortions are riskier and more complicated later in pregnancy.

"It is extremely hard for a woman to have a late abortion and also hard for the doctor that performs it, both psychologically and other ways," Couillard told CBC radio.

He said the late-term abortions are often "related to congenital malformations but also sometimes for other reasons."

This article is from 2004 and according to wiki the situation remains unchanged. Yes, the numbers are small. But this means there are dozens of women per year who cannot exercise control over their own bodies and must go to the US - often at their own expense. Since 2004, this would be over a hundred would it not? Henry Morgentaler himself won't even do it.  This situation to me does not seem right. If even one woman does not have control over her own body, then it seems that none of us really do.There are a gazillion reasons one could end up not realizing you were pregnant until then or not want or need one until then.

Beyond any horror, discomfort, conflict, emotion, or whatever it is that drives this perpetual debate, the decision to abort certainly cannot be left to the discretion of the patriarchy, boyfriends, husbands, abusers, etc.  The range of excuses would just become the thin edge of whatever political wind drifts through at election time.  There can be only one decider, and that has already been determined.  The true horror lies in having the decision spread around for determination.

Yes, I suppose you are correct martin, given that she also erroneously stated that  Canadian women, "often"  pay for it at their own expense, when they travel to the USA,  when the article she quoted from clearly states that indeed Canadian women do not. The province pays for it.

Regarding first paragraph, there is no room for debate,  why is as I stated, and to which you said you listened to, but immediately again said the opposite. The only thing that needs to be said to women, who choose to equate themselves in the situation, which is none of their business, is; "it is none of your business, and you are transgressing 3 basic human rights, so perhaps you should stop and pay attention to things pertinent to you such as.... I.E. access".