[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

The US has several restrictions on abortion that are generally pretty popular.  Most US states have a limit on how many weeks into the pregnancy you can be.  There are limits on "partial birth abortions".  None of those restrictions exist in Canada.

We don't need any of those here. "Partial birth abortions" is anti-abortion scare mongering. On the other hand, some of the time limits are so low that often women will not even know they're pregnant until after the time period has passed.

There are also laws that require insertion of probes and forcing the women to listen to the foetal hearbeat, laws that reduce the number of reduction clinics to the point that they are practically unobtainable in large areas of the country for those who are not wealthy and so on.

[Jacob]

Would it be such a bad thing to ban abortion after 28 weeks, which was the old US Roe v Wade system?  Yes it's a restriction of access, but a fairly minimal one considering the fact you have 6 months in which to get an abortion.

Why is such a restriction necessary? What problem does it solve that is currently being unaddressed?

[Jacob]

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.

And why is this a problem?

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.

Good.

[Barrister]

The US has several restrictions on abortion that are generally pretty popular.  Most US states have a limit on how many weeks into the pregnancy you can be.  There are limits on "partial birth abortions".  None of those restrictions exist in Canada.

We don't need any of those here. "Partial birth abortions" is anti-abortion scare mongering. On the other hand, some of the time limets are so low that often women will not even know they're pregnant until after the time period has passed.

There are also laws that require insertion of probes and forcing the women to listen to the foetal hearbeat, laws that reduce the number of reduction clinics to the point that they are practically unobtainable in large areas of the country for those who are not wealthy and so on.

And who exactly is proposing such laws in Canada?

[Barrister]

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.

Good.

Yup, I'm out.

Government ignorance is good as long as it serves your political interests.  Good to know.

[Jacob]

"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!

In the context of abortion politics, "Trojan horse" and slippery slope is 100% the correct approach. Look at the erosion of access to abortion in the US. The American anti-abortion right has explicitly made it clear that they've been using slippery slope tactics - and they've been very successful at it.

The American right wing and the Canadian one are not so different - especially when it comes to abortion politics - that we should not look at that as instructive. It would be foolish not to.

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".

Not at all. It's like saying "the Bolsheviks conducted purges in Russia, maybe they will conduct purges in Hungary too once they're in power." It's eminently reasonable.

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.

Looking to American examples is not going to help your case that there's no slippery slope involved in anti-abortion politics. American anti-abortion folks have been very clear - and very successful - about their strategy. They've taken every inch, using every excuse, but their goal is indeed Handmaid's Tale-esque.

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.

There is nothing unethical about abortions. Post-birth abortion is called infanticide and is already covered by our legislation.

(also, that's a slippery slope your argued right there, innit?)

[Jacob]

And who exactly is proposing such laws in Canada?

The North American anti-abortion movement has a well-developed playbook on this. You can see how it's progressed along the same track at different rates in various US states. But one thing that doesn't change is the constant pressure to move along the track into further restriction.

The best course for pro-abortion folks - and for folks who simply aren't anti-abortion - is to resist any movement along that track at all stages. It would be foolish - and strategically unsound - not to.

[viper37]

I don't think there's anything wrong is gathering stats.

If any thing, it could help the province improve on their sex education.

Anyway, like guns, it should be something left the provinces.

[HVC]

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.

Good.

Yup, I'm out.

Government ignorance is good as long as it serves your political interests.  Good to know.

If you're still around the topic, and you feel comfortable enough to share, if you had the power to snap your fingers and make it happen would you illegalize abortion in Canada?

[Jacob]

Yup, I'm out.

Government ignorance is good as long as it serves your political interests.  Good to know.

If there's any argument for this data being available OTHER than to justify anti-abortion rhetoric, I'm happy to retract my statement of "good".

I'm happy to discuss Canadian abortion politics with you on this little corner of the internet, but we will obviously disagree.

[HVC]

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...

Don't know what conservatism gravitates around in Quebec, but in Ontario it's definitely religion.  I get that impression in Alberta too. I blame protestants.

[crazy canuck]

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?

Yes, actually there is quite a lot.

Go to his actual Petition which is linked in that article.  He starts out by saying 300 "babies" are killed by abortion.  That is a false inflammatory statement.

He also makes a false statement about pro-life groups being silenced on campus.

If the Conservatives want to have a discussion focused on the issue of whether it might be appropriate to criminalize abortions then they should not engage in this kind of false rhetoric.  But of course they do so in order to pander to their base.  And so, as Oex pointed out, the party making the argument is relevant.

[crazy canuck]

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.

Good.

Yup, I'm out.

Government ignorance is good as long as it serves your political interests.  Good to know.

If you're still around the topic, and you feel comfortable enough to share, if you had the power to snap your fingers and make it happen would you illegalize abortion in Canada?

He has already proposed 28 weeks as the legal limit in this discussion.

[crazy canuck]

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.

You know what is crass politics - calling abortion the killing of babies.

[Oexmelin]

I fully get it.  The abortion issue is a useful wedge issue for the Liberals and the left.

...and it's an issue that conservatives keep bringing up because it dynamizes their base, and is, for many conservatives, a core part of their Christian/Conservative identity.

I don't see what makes this crass, as opposed to just simply politics. What would be an "uncrass" way to discuss such a hot, contested, morally difficult, topic?

The truth is: there is no dispassionate way, right now, to discuss abortion. Both sides of that debate made sure of that. And women groups made sure of that. You can certainly deplore that fact, but whenever the issue is raised, it *will* be immediately seized by political stances. The day that it will be discussed dispassionately will be when the very principle of it is going to be utterly consensual. Do you see a time when that will happen?

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

Perhaps. But I also think it's a really difficult message to discuss on a tiny little private message board that is overwhelmingly male.