[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[HVC]

I didn't say restrict, I said greater access. How easily would free contraceptives at school fly with your conservative brethren?

How many abortions are performed after 28 weeks in Canada that aren't medically necessary? Is it statistically significant to start creating laws?

[crazy canuck]

Before picking a arbitrary date for legislatures to enact - I would first need to be persuaded that this is not a medical rather than criminal law issue.  And if it is a medical issue, what is the problem with the way we deal with it now?

[Malthus]

Before we open up a conversation on abortion, I would want to be convinced the system we have right now causes some sort of problem.

I guess I'm kinda an old school conservative in one respect - I need a reason to enact change. The old law caused a noticeable problem (women being criminalized for getting abortions - that was problematic). Is the new system causing a real-world problem?

[Oexmelin]

The reason why any talk of restriction about abortion is complicated is because, as BB implicitly suggests, it becomes a sort of trojan horse for conservatives - once you start with a limit, you can move that limit, according to political vicissitudes. Keeping it a politically toxic topic seems the surest way to avoid infringing upon access.

Practically, too, there are limits anyway - usually provided by individual doctors who will have different ethical standards.

I would recommend at least reading Aude Mermilliod's graphic novel about abortion.

[Barrister]

Before we open up a conversation on abortion, I would want to be convinced the system we have right now causes some sort of problem.

I guess I'm kinda an old school conservative in one respect - I need a reason to enact change. The old law caused a noticeable problem (women being criminalized for getting abortions - that was problematic). Is the new system causing a real-world problem?

https://www.arcc-cdac.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/statistics-abortion-in-canada.pdf

So lots of holes in these statistics, but there are between 500-700 abortions per year (excluding Quebec) at 21 weeks +.  But that only counts hospitals, and almost one third of abortions don't report the fetal age at all.

So yeah, for starters just getting better information would be a help - but for political reasons we can't even do that in this country.

[Barrister]

The reason why any talk of restriction about abortion is complicated is because, as BB implicitly suggests, it becomes a sort of trojan horse for conservatives - once you start with a limit, you can move that limit, according to political vicissitudes. Keeping it a politically toxic topic seems the surest way to avoid infringing upon access.

Practically, too, there are limits anyway - usually provided by individual doctors who will have different ethical standards.

"Trojan horse" is just another way of making a slippery slope argument - that if you give those darn conservatives a single inch, who knows where they'll stop!

It is, frankly, an intellectually lazy way to argue.  And yes I do see it on the right all the time too - calling any infinitesimally small increase in government spending as "socialism".

It's another riff on the "hidden agenda" argument that just poisons any debate.  You don't argue what your opponent is saying, but attribute something entirely else to your opponent.  It's like saying Joe Biden is in favour of "defund the police" just because a handful of activists argue for it, while ignoring the fact Biden has repeatedly said he is opposed to defunding the police.

Do you not see the ethical problem of leaving abortion access up to individual doctors own moral codes?  That just means you're limited by the least ethical doctor going.  And while the vast majority of doctors are highly ethical, it only takes one Dr. Kermit Gosnell who would literally "abort" babies after they left the womb.

[Oexmelin]

I do see the problem. Unfortunately, the onus to "de-toxify" the discourse around abortion is incumbent upon conservatives, who haven't the greatest track record with women's rights, if not in Canada, certainly in the US. The way conservatives in Canada look to the US for inspiration does not instill great confidence.

If the conservatives were somehow able to convince people that their concern around abortion is based on an ethical/moral issue and that they otherwise are great proponents of women's rights and health, maybe they would stand a chance of making small, incremental progress on that front. I don't think the track record gives much ground to complain that they are not being heard fairly.

[Barrister]

I do see the problem. Unfortunately, the onus to "de-toxify" the discourse around abortion is incumbent upon conservatives, who haven't the greatest track record with women's rights, if not in Canada, certainly in the US. The way conservatives in Canada look to the US for inspiration does not instill great confidence.

If the conservatives were somehow able to convince people that their concern around abortion is based on an ethical/moral issue and that they otherwise are great proponents of women's rights and health, maybe they would stand a chance of making small, incremental progress on that front. I don't think the track record gives much ground to complain that they are not being heard fairly.

What does "de-toxify the discourse" even mean?  What would you have conservatives actually do?

Go take a look at the Press Progress article two pages back.  Ignore who is making the argument - try engaging with the argument itself.  Do you find anything objectionable there?  He said he'd like to reduce abortions to zero which you no doubt disagree, but seemed to concede that wasn't possible so was more interested in ways to reduce the number instead.  He specified that could be either from criminal or non-criminal changes to the law.

Do you see anything "toxic" in what Vierson was saying?

[viper37]

That is because 50+ percent of voters in Alberta will support the Conservatives no matter what.

There are other provinces in this country that elect conservative voters, and since we're talking global voting intentions, the number 50% of Albertans that would always vote Conservative is not significant enough to maintain the polls within at always the same numbers, poll after poll.
It would mean that for the purpose of polling, all except Mainstreet have a sample that overrepresents the 50%+ of Albertans who would vote CPP no matter what. Statistically impossible.

[Oexmelin]

Ignore who is making the argument - try engaging with the argument itself. 

That's precisely the part you can't ignore. This is politics, not ethereal philosophy.

I don't think there is an actual political path for the conservatives on this. Not unless they would build a tremendous amount of goodwill by advocating women's health issues. Unfortunatly for them, these are often couched in ways that conflict with "traditional family" or "small-state", which are other talking points that are popular with the conservative base. 

In other words, arguments about welfare of women always seem an afterthought to the main thing (ABORTIONS!), as opposed to being part of a full platform on healthcare, mental health, poverty, etc.

[viper37]

Are some women out there having abortions for fun? 

How does one go about reducing abortions without reducing access? Only thing I can think of is greater access to education and contraceptives, which most conservatives I know would loath to do.

Your last sentence nailed it.  We need more contraceptives and better sex ed.  I don't think most conservative loath it.  But you will have problem with many religious communities, and the question of religious freedom would certainly resurface if you force private religious schools to have these classes.  If only there were support for secularism in some parts of this country...

[viper37]

Without providing medical exemptions, it creates a huge problem.  Doctors could be sued for performing a late term abortion when a woman's life is in danger.  

[Barrister]

Ignore who is making the argument - try engaging with the argument itself. 

That's precisely the part you can't ignore. This is politics, not ethereal philosophy.

I don't think there is an actual political path for the conservatives on this. Not unless they would build a tremendous amount of goodwill by advocating women's health issues. Unfortunatly for them, these are often couched in ways that conflict with "traditional family" or "small-state", which are other talking points that are popular with the conservative base. 

In other words, arguments about welfare of women always seem an afterthought to the main thing (ABORTIONS!), as opposed to being part of a full platform on healthcare, mental health, poverty, etc.

I fully get it.  The abortion issue is a useful wedge issue for the Liberals and the left.  As soon as it is brought up the Liberals will use the exact same language as you - that it's a trojan horse, that conservatives are "toxic", and use it as an an excuse to talk about other parts of the Liberal platform.

But it's crass politics, and don't try to pretend otherwise.

If you want to play culture war politics you're free to do so.  But you lose the moral high ground when the right does it as well and you try to complain.

I would have thought that on a tiny little private message board it would be more interesting to actually discuss issues.

[Jacob]

I wish someday we could have a meaningful debate on abortion policy in this country.

In the article quoted there was one mention of reducing abortions to zero, but a greater portion about just reducing the number of abortions.  Which is I think a policy goal that should be widely popular across the spectrum (the devil is in the details, of course).

I've often said my ideals on abortion are the same as Bill Clinton - that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

The rarity is a red herring, IMO, and we don't need to have a debate about it. If there are ways to reduce the number of unwanted pregancies (better sex ed, cost/ availability of contraceptives, macro socio-economic policies that result in lower frequencies of "accidents") then great - but that doesn't require a debate. Just do it.

Is there anyone out there who considers themselves "pro-abortion"?  That is that each abortion is something to celebrate?

You know what, yes. Put me down as "pro-abortion." I'm also pro-vaccination, pro-chemotherapy, pro-insulin, pro-heart surgery, pro-physiotherapy, and pro- any other kind medical procedure that improves people's quality of life.

I do not think that an abortion is a tragedy that should be avoided anymore than any other medical procedure should be avoided.

I'm cool with taking action to reduce the number of abortions, but it's purely from a quality of life / economic perspective rather than a moral one - and there is no special reason to reduce the number of abortions over reducing the number of heart bypass surgeries. Give people the care they need in the best, most economical way. Full stop.

But as soon as Conservatives say anything about abortion the Liberal attacks start painting the party as wanting to reduce women to a Handmaid's Tale-level of subjugation.  Which on one level fair enough, it seems to work.  But it just makes me very, very tired.

I think it's because the thing that ultimately drives it as a political motivator is rooted in belief (or at least rhetoric) about the sanctity of the foetus. Canadian anti-abortion (and "abortion concerned") rhetoric and values feeds from the same stream as American rhetoric and values. And right now, in the US, there are bills under consideration in various states where women can be sued for having an abortion even by their rapists, others criminalizing the removal of (completely non-viable, life threatening) ectopic pregnancies, where advising or helping women get abortions open medical practictioners to criminal liability, and - very commonly and in place already - reducing the number of aboritions is achieved by making them difficult or impractical to access.

That is, I believe - and I think most people outside of the Conservative party believe - that the Conservative mild pro-life concern about abortion is a tactical choice; but that these same pro-life advocates would happily take the Handmaid's Tale level of restrictions if they could, and that these milder proposals are attempts to build towards that. Because that's how we've seen things play out in the US in a number of states.

At the same time, the bulk of mildly disinterested Conservatives who don't care much about abortion will just move where the votes are. So if the pro-life folks get their mild disincentives they'll move on to want medium disincentives, and so on - and the mildly disinterested Conservatives will move along as long as it gets sufficient votes (without driving off other votes). And that's why it's very important to make clear to the mostly disinterested Conservatives that there will be an electoral cost even for mild disincentives.

I know I've made this point before - when the SCC struck down Canada's existing abortion laws in the 1980s they certainly did not say that Canada could not pass any law on abortion.  The SCC even gave some guidance on what would or would not be permitted.  But because it was so politically controversial the Mulroney government of the day just punted.  We're one of the only countries that have no federal rules regarding abortion.  Instead it's up to the various medical boards across the country to regulate.

If we didn't have the ever deepening festering sore that is American abortion politics right next door, then maybe it wouldn't be a hot button issue. But we do.

[viper37]

Not talk about it.  At all.