In Canada, abortion is not limited and restricted by the law; however, some non-legal obstacles still exist. Early in Canadian history, abortion was made illegal by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, introduced by Pierre Trudeau (Liberal Government). Nevertheless, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the existing laws were unconstitutional and stuck down the Law. From that point on, Canada has had no laws governing the subject of abortion. Presently, abortion is still carried out in Canada but the amount of abortions performed has significantly decreased over the number of years.
As the current Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper is determined not to reopen the issue and debate on abortion; however, when the MPs considered whether to create a committee to examine the legal definition of when a human life begins this issue was inevitable. According to Woodworth, the Conservative MP, he defined human life “as the moment when a child has fully emerged from the mother’s birth canal”. Within the Government, the positions of the Conservative, New Democratic, and the Liberal party are outlined. Harper, along with the Conservatives repeatedly stated that they have no interest on this topic and does not wish to bring the debate back at all. While the New Democratic Party they want to reexamine and clarify whether a fetus is a human being. Finally, the position of the Liberals would be around how the abortion issue is a matter of individual conscience and moral. The three standings of the Parties would result in the heated debates within the government. Furthermore, three issues regarding the border defining human life results would be the controversy over Planned Parenthood funding, the coerced abortion law, and maternal health. Anti-abortion supporters have begun to take actions by influencing the government to cut funding to the International Planned Parenthood Federation. Another issue that was strongly in disfavored by the NDP would be the Roxanne’s Law which would “penalize anyone who coerced a woman into ending her pregnancy against her will. In against abortion from the NDP, the government decided to stop all abortion funds in its G8 child and maternal health- care initiative for developing countries.
With all these topics and issues in mind, reopening the debate of abortion is a risky chance to take. To begin with, the flexibility of the border to human life contributes to criminal laws specifically regarding crimes with pregnant woman involved. Most of the time, even though the fetus is not fully grown yet, it would still be considered a “human being” in order for the trial to be fair. Furthermore, it seems like every time this issue was brought up, the anti- abortion supporters would usually “win the day” with either cutting funds or attempting the restrict abortion in some sensible method. Regarding abortion, Canada has already been very considerate to its citizens, opposed to Texas. Recently in Texas, the Texas’ abortion sonogram bill and Virginia’s abortion bill sonogram bill was passed which enraged most of its citizens. The original Virginia’s abortion bill stated that “doctors are required to perform a sonogram in advance of abortion to determine the gestational age of the fetus” and it became more lenient now. On the other hand, the Texas law required that “Women must have a sonogram at least 24 hours before an abortion and the doctor, must play the heartbeat aloud, describe the fetus and how the woman the image, unless she choose not to view it. In response to this, the reopening of the topic of abortion has a chance that bills like the Texas and Virginia bill will be introduced, but with a low percentage if being passes. Having side with Conservatives, I think that reopening the debate to abortion would not end this controversial subject but make it worse than before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canadahttp://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/04/26/f-abortion-woodworth-motion-parties.html
http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/02/25/3763085/texas-abortion-measure-flies-under.html
Interesting response, Jenny! You provided a lot of vital issues surrounding abortion, and you backed it up with facts and other information.
ReplyDeleteHowever, while I understand that this is a difficult and controversial issue, does it really justify the government avoiding the debate? It's alarming to think that a topic should become taboo because the government thinks it's troublesome or will jeopardize their chances in elections. I'd like to think that Canada is a more progressive society than that, and would keep the people's interests in mind even if it seems bothersome. Examining the legal definition of the human life should be important-- after all, it is a human life. Something as important as a life-- not only the baby's, but as well as the lives of the people effected by it (like the mother) should not go ignored. Even if the government does not wish to invest in abortion programs in other nations (which I personally find slightly appalling, but if there are more urgent priorities like feeding the hungry, then so be it), shouldn't they at least be interested in ours if it is directly related to a human life?
I really do like the fact that you've condensed several issues into your response, and I understand why you might not want to reopen the debate, but I don't think being apathetic would benefit anyone.
I find it interestting that you think Anna's response is so strong when for me, the phrasing in your comment is even more impassioned, perhaps potentially inflammable?
DeleteThe conversations make for good reading though!
Oops, my bad! Is my word choice too strong? I guess I did get a little caught up. I'll keep this in mind for the future. :)
DeleteI enjoyed your response, Jenny! You've provided very detailed arguments and various political stances regarding the matter.
ReplyDeleteWhile I firmly believe in women's right to abortion, I find that approaching the subject by defining the 'beginning of life' is rather indirect and offhanded. Regardless of whether or not life has 'legally' begun in the womb, a potential life is being terminated. The results are the same- removing one life that would otherwise have existed.
The true basis for the abortion debate is religion(which I, by the way, found surprising that neither of you mentioned). In many religions, life is regarded as sacred, and those who try to end a life a regarded as sinners. Those who choose to strictly follow their faiths will always abide by this stance. It does not matter to them that, by legal definition, life does or does not begin in the womb until a certain point in development. Abortions are bad. And that's that. So instead of pursuing a legal definition of when piles of cells suddenly acquire life, arguments should revolve around whether opinions of the Canadian society have shifted far enough for abortion to be truly legalized.
I agree with Hannah that having laws to regulate the current situation would definitely set clearer lines in society. But I personally question whether a debate is needed, especially with the offhanded nature of the topic. The abortion issue, like prostitution, may be more ongoing and contentious than we realize- citizens may never reach a resolution. Currently, those who wish to get an abortion can do so legally, and those who oppose abortion can simply chose not to have one. Neither opinion is being forced down the throat of the other. The lack of laws governing the current system allows for more flexibility. While I hope that pro-choice laws supporting abortion will be created, I highly doubt that this debate will amount to any progressive change in the current system. That being said, we might as well spend our energy addressing more dire problems, such as the teacher strike :P
I'm surprised at the powerful stance you take on this debate, Anna! I agree, religion certainly has been the traditional "reasoning" for pro-life advocates. However, the reason why I did not bring it up is because the debate here is not whether or not women can abort their fetus, but at what point would the fetus become a fully formed human being with rights. Canada has already made its ruling; abortion is legal, and we're not trying to dispute that. It's a fact that Canada has "shifted far enough"-- in 2010 EKOS published a poll that clearly showed the majority of the population were pro-choice and only 27% were pro-life.
DeletePerhaps abortion is a grey area, but I don't think something as vital as a law that regulates the termination of a fetus/life should be wishy-washy. I do think that scientific research and in-depth study should go into this. I do agree that people should have flexibility, which is why we allow for abortion; but if it is a human life that has rights and freedoms, then we should have the right to know.
(Sorry, I didn't mean to respond for you, Jenny, I only meant to defend why I didn't bring up religion... I guess I go too caught up.)
You're completely right in pointing out that abortion is currently legal in Canada, Hannah. I just noticed my mistake in the third paragraph, questioning whether abortion should be legalized, when it already is. It was also very helpful of you to point out that majority of Canadians are pro-choice (kudos to your good research :)- now I understand why you didn't mention religion.
DeleteThe point I was trying to make however, is that this 'define when life begins' topics is essentially aimed at changing abortion laws in Canada in an offhanded way. I assume that if the moment human life begins was to be redetermined, current abortion laws would have to change, since current laws assume life does not begin until the baby draws its first breath. The idea that a legal definition can completely change a process, even though the results remain the same, is a bit unreasonable to me. By tackling the abortion issue this way, changes that don't reflect current Canadian views may take place, all due to a legal definition.
Personally, and I may be pounced on for saying this, I think that it does not matter when life 'officially' begins in the womb. Abortion is abortion. A potential life is being given up, no matter when the fetus supposedly gains life.
You obviously have some strong feelings on this subject - your wording indicates this in a few places. You may wish to temper some of it to avoid potential absolutes, unless that is your intention. For example: your last sentence indicates that a potential life is being given up... do you mean "may" be given up. This position assumes the potential life would survive until birth and often in abortion cases, this may not be so.
DeleteAlright, I'll keep that in mind! I do have a strong opinion on the subject, and I think that while trying to take a strong stance, I made the mistake of being too absolute with some of my phrasing. I will work on better phrasing and word choice in the future :)
DeleteJenny, it seems you sparked some heated debate, and this is usually a good thing. In your original post there are some phrasings and word choice/usage errors that are causing some trouble with clarity in the expression of your ideas. Some missing / extra words too - not sure if this is due to a hasty poste 5 min before class this morning or just having some difficulty with the wording. Try drafting it in word and running throught the spell and grammar check first, then copy and paste it into your post. This also allows you to keep copies of your written work as back up. Eg of one place this is a bit of a problem is in the last paragraph where you indicate something about a fair trial resulting from the fetus being known as a human being (paraphrased briefly). I am unclear as to what you are referring too - how does knowing when a fetus is human result in a fair trial? for whome? under what circumstances?
ReplyDeleteI agree with your cohorts - your research attempts to address multiple political positions within the debate - mostly in summary form. However, occasionally I think you misread. I would like to see a little more elaboration (make connections between the issues and your opinion) on the Texas case for example. Your description of what the doctor is required to do sounds like coersion / trying to convince a birth mother not to abort by having them visualise details, etc. - something I believe would not be allowed under our current laws.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion about not re-opening the debate. I think your response would be better if your opinion were supported more with why you think it would make the debate worse? In what way? Define worse. Hannah, and perhaps other readers, might otherwise misunderstand you and think that it would be worse because it is too difficult a task to tackle. Maybe this is what you mean, but if it is, it does not make your argument very strong. See me towards the end of flex and I can help explain further. It is still better than your first post, so keep up the hard work.
I apologize for causing such a heated conversation.
ReplyDeleteIn response to to my last paragraph, the issues of legal life in court was simply brought up as an example. As mentioned in prior classes, occasionally, a fetus- not considered as human life according to the abortion laws- that is related to the trial would be considered as a human life. This verdicts are mostly have a relation to a criminal trial with a woman who is pregnant. Within these cases, the law is flexible towards the border line of human life in order to give the mother a sense of fairness. If there is a specific and stable border line separating human life and non- human life, since every case includes different senarios, it might be more dificult to reach a fair and justified trial for the mother and the defendant.
In response to the comments made by Hannah and Anna, both have very strog response. With Hannah, I understand that how that no matter how controversial this topic is, it should not be ignored but be given our utmost attention within debates. However, I agree with Anna on how this topic will not reach a satisfactory result and even if it does, then the abortion laws would have to changed along with how the court will trial cases regarding a fetus within the justice system. Instead, these efforts can be used on some current topics and issues like the teacher's strike as mentioned by Anna. Furthermore, nobody can force a mother to take abortion as a option; although their surroundings might. (proverty, etc) Abortion is simple within the mother's own decisions. The mother can choose whether to have the child or not and she will therefore be responsible for the consequeces. Most of the time, the decision of abortion is due to proverty or not enough finacial support, however soemtimes, if a mother know that their child will be defected or born with something that would differentiate them with other babies, the chances of abortion would be higher in order to protect their baby. This is important because if the baby was born with defects, it would be a burden to both the parents and the society, and lastly the baby itself.
Very interesting post Jennyma, you have explained the topic quite well. However I do believe you are going to have to explain better on how reopening abortion would only make the controversy even worse. So far you have only just asserted such but have provided no proof for this belief.
ReplyDeleteJust to let you know