The next fight

Conservative MP Mark Warawa, who supported Stephen Woodworth’s motion, has tabled the following motion.

That the House condemn discrimination against females occuring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.




Browse

The next fight

  1. Again…what is with the anecdotally based policy and bill making (Conservatives are sure fond of that). He makes the assumption that this IS happening and drafts a bill to support it. Weak, lame and very revealing.

    • AFP ~ Jan 2012:

      An editorial in a major Canadian medical journal Monday urges doctors to conceal the gender of a fetus from all pregnant women until 30 weeks to prevent sex-selective abortion by Asian immigrants.

      A separate article in the same issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal warns that Canada has become “a haven for parents who would terminate female fetuses in favour of having sons” because of the country’s advanced prenatal testing and easy access to abortion.

      • an article isn’t evidence……the fact is that the CMAJ article is warning that such a thing could occur….not that it is…..and even if it did? I hold our policy makers to a higher level of statistical and scientifically based evidence and public consultation than an article…especially given the state of journalism today.

        • The CMAJ is warning physicians that there are people who want to select the sex of their children. At this point in time there is no technology that will allow parents to do that so some are seeking to select the sex of their children through abortion. Medical journals don’t speak to issues that aren’t front and centre. They don’t provide warnings for “what might happen”. The CMAJ is warning that their are parents out there RIGHT NOW attempting to use abortion as a way to ensure they don’t have girls. The way to stop the practice is to stop telling parents what sex their child is. I am absolutely pro-choice because no one should tell a woman she has to carry and birth a child BUT if she just doesn’t want the child because it’s not the right sex or doesn’t have the right hair color or some other equally superficial bullshit reason, she should stick to shopping for her accessories and skip the reproduction portion of life, where funny enough you get some combination of the imperfect twosome that created the new being. I think we have all seen what happens when girl children are not valued. A two-year old was taken off life support last week after she and her twin sister were found starved and mistreated in their parent’s home in Edmonton. They weighed as much as a 6 month old child should while their older brother was in fantastic health. Now let’s let the physicians do their job as the abortions don’t occur without their facilitation….politics doesn’t need to interefere.

  2. “We will not re-open the abortion debate”

    – Stephen Harper, lying through his teeth

    • Just how did harper lose control of his caucus and cabinet? Is this a sign of weakness, or is he in collusion with them? And how the hell is all this noise about abortion helping with the government’s focus on JOBS and the ECONOMY?

      • This is a win, win, win for Harper.
        See he is not the control freak. Look at all those that did not vote as he did.

        For anti choice folks the party that most strongly supports them are CPC. Better keep voting for them.

        Harper himself is not anti-choice. No hidden agenda.

        • Dunno. He might find himself running from “Your own Minister for Women” voted against abortion rights” in 2015.

    • Funny how you guys consider any attempt to protect unborn children as “opening the abortion debate”. Do you feel an uncontrollable urge to punch newborns in the face when you see them?

      • Not newborns…

        • Yeah. Just the things that exist 2 minutes before the become classified newborns. You know, by cracking open their skulls without anaesthetic and sucking their brains out.

        • Yeah. Just whatever things exist 2 minutes before being classified as newborns. Which we pay someone to kill, without using anaesthetic, by cracking open their skull and sucking out their brains.

          • Actually, I was referring to jackasses who would ask a question as stupid as “Do you feel an uncontrollable urge to punch newborns in the face?”

  3. Just can’t leave it alone, can they?

    • The great thing about the CPC is they way they never let you forget that they are clods and buffoons, petulant whiners and petty tyrants. Should you happen to forget it, one will be along shortly to remind you.

      • Boy, you got that right….and I don’t know why. It’s political suicide.

      • i think that’s more of a “silver lining” than a “great thing”

      • Oh, you forgot PURE EVIL. God knows anybody who might disagree with you must have malicious intent and be a complete fool. Thanks for your excellent addition to the debate.

  4. Progressives: defending womens rights by defending their killing. Why, exactly, would anybody vote against this? Who here thinks that sex-selective abortion is a good and proper thing? Aside from @emilyone:disqus @lgarvin:disqus @TJCook:disqus and @f087f1b47719b211d00b7468b5285052:disqus ? How can anybody defend the practice?

    • Back from vacation eh?

      Well, I suppose even Conbot trolls need a break.

      • Excellent rebuttal. Who’s trolling now?!

        • You are….as always.

          • I know you are but what am I?

          • I see your vacation didn’t help.

          • Help what?

          • Clear your mind.

    • if you want to prevent abortion of female fetuses, then INCREASE women’s rights, roles, status, earning capacity etc in our society. It’s religious denigration of girl children that drives this particular discrimination.

      • Huh? Women have the same rights as men. Are you actually suggesting that if society went all affirmative-action on women that there would be fewer abortions? That’s complete and utter non-sense.

    • That’s not what the motion was about. It made no reference to sex-selective abortion. In fact, proponents of the bill assured one and all it wasn’t about abortion at all.

      So, what are you chirping about?

    • Rick, sex-selective abortion is not the issue…..in fact it’s a straw man as is third trimester abortion and such items. They are used by the pro-life movement to ensure that the issue becomes muddy and that people get distracted by problems no one is having. I suggest you actually read the bill as it had nothing to do with what you are talking about by any stretch…..perhaps calm down first.

      • The issue is muddy, and it’s not because of some people who want to see fewer aborted babies. It’s because of people who think that abortions are a good thing and should be protected at all costs, no matter who the victims may be.

  5. Oh for fuck sake! Please. WHEN will the Cons stop attacking women’s rights???

    • yes. by defending women from sex-selective abortion, the “Cons” are attacking womens rights.

      Of course the “Lieberals” would defend women’s rights by allowing couples to choose to kill unborn and unwanted females.

      That’s a brilliant bit of backwards logic there.

      • Except that’s not what happened at all. Given this vote yesterday, this clearly is another attempt to reopen the abortion debate while trying to appear altruistic in motive.

        Self-righteousness aside, that is exactly what this motion is.

        • Maybe aborting as many babies as possible isn’t as altruistic as you seem to think it is.

          • Since no one is making abortions mandatory, and since (aside from the straw boogeyman your side insists on making up) women don’t get abortions just for the heck of it, and since a fetus isn’t a baby (so by extension can’t be aborted), your comment is nonsense. Who on Earth thinks that this is about getting as many babies aborted as possible?

            Aside from you, anyway?

      • The thing is, Rick Omen, this motion is not without context. It immediately follows an attempt to re-open the abortion issue, threatening the rights and lives of millions of Canadian women. The motion itself is not reprehensible, but the timing makes it really appear like just the next volley in a new attack on women’s rights, within Canada.

        In Canada, medical professionals are not permitted, by law, to inform the parents of the sex of a baby until 20 weeks gestation, at which point it is both difficult and dangerous to obtain an abortion, deliberately in order to avoid sex-selective abortion. So, this is not a pressing issue in Canada. Yes, it absolutely is in other countries, however many of those countries are overpopulated (most other countries are overpopulated), and terminating a pregnancy is, in my opinion, far preferable to leaving a delivered baby to die of exposure, which has been the solution for the very poor all over the world since the dawn of time. Fetuses can’t feel pain until 28 weeks; they don’t have the neural pathways. Delivered babies certainly can.

        So, hot on the tail of a failed motion to revisit the issue of personhood, we have a motion condemning a use for abortion that’s virtually impossible in Canada, under the existing laws.

        Sorry, but, as a woman, in this context, I’m more bothered by the implications this has regarding the sanctity of my body than I am by the possibility of Canadians aborting their fetuses because they happen to be female.

        • The motion itself IS reprehensible because any attempt to limit abortion is reprehensible.

          • Any attempt to limit 3rd trimester abortions would be reprehensible? Would be against a bill that limited abortion 2 weeks before the due date? Would you be against a bill that limited abortion AFTER the baby was born?

          • So all Western nations besides Canada should be reprehended as anti-woman because they have a few restrictions? And.. you think that dismemberment, decapitation, and the burning alive of fetuses that feel pain (paid for by my tax-dollars! – who is forcing whose beliefs on who here?!) is not in the slightest reprehensible? Honestly, that’s just plain sick.

        • The “attempt to re-open the abortion issue” as you call it, was in fact an attempt to DISCUSS at which point a fetus becomes a person.

          For someone who seems to feel so passionately about ensuring as many babies are aborted as possible, you sure aren’t demonstrating a lot of confidence in your ability to defend said passion.

          • “The “attempt to re-open the abortion issue” as you call it, was in fact an attempt to DISCUSS at which point a fetus becomes a person.”

            Yes. That’s exactly what it was.

            Seriously, do you think people are dumb, and just blindly accept what Woodworth told them?

          • Why are you so afraid of having a discussion? Could it be because you know that most people would want SOME kind of regulation on abortions? When you’re afraid to defend your beliefs, it comes off looking like your beliefs are based on nothing at all.

          • “Why are you so afraid of having a discussion?”

            That’s not what this would be. In case you’ve forgotten, the Conservatives have a majority, which essentially means they can do as they please. So yet again, you’re masking true intentions by playing all innocent.

            Then you have the nerve to criticize *my* beliefs. Irony, thy name is Rick Omen.

          • You know what, you’re right. It would be the House condemning abortions for the sake of sex-selection. It wouldn’t be a law, it would be a simple statement.

            By opposing the motion, you are saying that the government of Canada should not oppose sex-selection abortion.

          • Uh … no. I’m saying that this MP’s intentions are not what you state they are. It wouldn’t be a simple *statement*. It would be another back-door attempt to reopen the debate.

            And you’ve created a false dichotomy, which is an argumentative fallacy. I can be against sex-selection abortion (which I am) without supporting this MP’s motion. This is an invalid argument. Try again.

          • You can’t claim to oppose sex-selection abortion while at the same time saying that any statement to condemn it is wrong. If you’re not willing to stand up for what you believe in, then at least don’t stand in the way of those who will – lest your claims stand hallow.

          • Do you understand what false dichotomy means? Seriously, I just showed your statement to be an argumentative fallacy, and you resort to the exact same fallacy to make your point. No, it’s an invalid argument. One very much can oppose *this* statement and not approve of sex-selection abortion overall. One can do that because *this* statement is most likely a Trojan Horse of sorts. That you refuse to see that doesn’t change a thing.

            Now, are you capable of debating without resorting to argumentative fallacies? Or am I wasting my time with you?

          • If you’re going to claim that a single statement condemning sex-selection abortion is a “trojan horse”, then you’re wasting your time.

          • With you? Absolutely. There are none so blind and such.

          • Max – sex-selection abortions happen in Canada. This motion could prevent that. If you’re actually against it sex-selection abortion, you wouldn’t let this go–even for one girl who is unjustly aborted because of the vacuum that exists in Canadian law regarding abortion. We’re not talking about an abstract (abortion only ever affects particular women and particular fetuses)–we’re talking about actual, specific human fetuses in Canada who will be born or not simply because of their sex–and because of a law that does not prevent this.

      • This is not an attempt to have more female fetuses brought to term, it’s an excuse to limit women’s safe and legal access to abortion. You can dress it up any way you like but limiting access to abortion is wrong and dangerous to women’s health.

        • Of course it is. Every attempt to protect a fetus is an attack on womens rights. Outrage!!!!!!!!

    • Well, Rick Omen, looks like others have voiced my exact thoughts before I could answer you!
      So now, deeply anti-choice Mike Warawa suddenly cares about women? Give me a break!
      He doesn’t care about the gender of the fetus. And he couldn’t care less about women needing abortion care. He doesn’t want to prevent sex-selective abortions. He doesn’t care about any of that.
      His main goal, I repeat, HIS MAIN GOAL, is to recriminalize abortions. ALL abortions. Under any circumstances.
      He thinks we’re too stupid to notice. But we’re not.

      • Well I’ll agree that I think you’re stupid when you say absolutely outlandish things like “HIS MAIN GOAL, is to recriminalize abortions. ALL abortions. Under any circumstances”. Perhaps you could provide a citation for that grandiose declaration?

        Some people don’t think abortions are the greatest thing in the world. That doesn’t mean they want to criminalize them. You need to calm down and stop projecting.

        • Awww! Classic tactic. To shut up women, call them all hysterics. Not gonna work with me.
          Okay. So you don’t see this as an attempt to limit ALL abortions, which is a rather obvious attempt, at that. Fine. But the rest of us are not fooled and will stand up for our rights.
          As for abortions not being the greatest thing… Well wonderful, guess what? YOU won’t have to undergo one if you don’t want to! Now of course, as a man, it’s easy for you to yell at women and impose your beliefs on them regardless of the consequences. Yes. It’s quite easy being anti-choice when you’re not the one being pregnant.
          Now, for some women, abortion access simply IS a great thing and what they might need most at this point in their lives. It’s not up to you to decide that. Not me neither, for that matter. You don’t have the right to make such a decision for another woman, that you don’t know and don’t care about.

          • Where id I call all women hysterics? I called you a hysteric, and I didn’t even know you were a woman!

            This is clearly NOT an attempt to limit ALL abortions, because there’s no limiting being proposed in the motion. It’s a motion that the House issue a statement.

            You can try to frame this as the CPC somehow being anti-woman, but the fact is that they simply want to issue a statement saying that abortions for reasons of sex-selection is wrong.

            If you believe abortions for sex-selection is a legitimate reason, that’s fine. But say so, instead of making things up.

            Again, the motion calls on the house to DENOUNCE, not criminalize, not ban, not limit. It would be nothing but a statement. But you can’t even get yourself to support that, so I’m left to believe that you think abortions are great at any time, place, and for any reason.

          • Oh please. The CPC, not anti-woman? When you have the Minister of women’s affairs voting FOR a motion as dangerous as M-312 you know something’s up. As for MIke Wawara, say what you will: his goal is not to denounce (again, he couldn’t care less of women having sex-selective abortions: he’s only using this particular issue to push his radical agenda), it’s to CRIMINALIZE abortions.
            I see your point. But I stand by what I’m saying: this is a not-too-subtle attack, again, on a woman’s right to chose.

          • So you’re saying that the Minister of Women’s Affairs, who happens to be a woman – is anti-woman? Do you think that every female in Canada who voted for the CPC is anti-woman? Do you think that every woman in Canada who opposes abortion is anti-woman?

            The problem with people like you is that you don’t understand that some people have different view-points and will disagree on things. To you, anybody who disagrees with you is inherently evil, so rather than debate the merits of your cause, you simply start inferring your own facts based on your paranoid sense that those who disagree with you must have an evil hidden agenda. It’s no different than me saying that anybody who disagrees with this motion clearly wants to see babies stop being born in Canada. It’s intellectually stupid.

            Don’t like anything that would condemn sex-selection abortion? Simply tar anybody who disagrees with you as a sexist buffoon.
            You think that all abortions are 100% legitimate for any reason at any time and at any place? Just accuse those who disagree with you as attempting to criminalize abortions under any circumstances.
            Please come back when you have something substantive to say that’s not based entirely on what the paranoid voices in your head are saying.

          • “The problem with people like you is that you don’t understand that some people have different view-points and will disagree on things.” WRONG. Sure, some people disagree with me. Some people have told me flat out that they would never, ever have an abortion themselves but that they totally feel they can’t impose their beliefs on other women. I absolutely respect that view. The only decision you can make regards yourself, your life, not that of other pregnant women. I’ve certainly never attempted to control someone else’s life or bodies! I don’t expect everyone to agree with me. I expect, however, everyone to respect my choices regarding my body and my life. We can have different viewpoints and we could indeed debate this day and night until there’s no tomorrow. What you fail to understand is that you do not have the legitimacy to make those decisions for OTHER women. Which is exactly what anti-choicers are doing: imposing their views, their beliefs, on the bodies and lives of other women. As for Rona Ambrose: she’s the minister for women’s affairs. As such, she’s supposed to stand up to women’s rights and health. She did a terrible job last night. She can hold whatever views she wants. But her vote last night showed her that she will not stand for women’s rights and health. She’s anti-woman. And again, this motion has NOTHING to do with sex-selective abortion, despite its language. This new motion by Mark Warawa is a none-too-subtle attempt, once again, to recriminalize abortions, ALL abortions. So don’t tell me it’s about “debate” or “discussion”: these white, privileged Christian MEN don’t want to argue or debate this. As for allegedly abortions not being 100% legitimate… I’d like to remind you that 90% of abortions are done in the 1st trimester. At this early stage the choice belongs to no one else but the pregnant woman. As for the tiny minority of abortions being done past 20 weeks, they are done for strictly medical reasons. If men were the ones having babies, would we have such trouble trusting them? We seriously need to start trusting women instead of controlling them. “Don’t like anything that would condemn sex-selection abortion? Simply tar anybody who disagrees with you as a sexist buffoon.” Well, well! Nowhere have I said that. (And trust me, as much as I disagree with you, I’ve heard a lot worse…) But now that you mention it, if the hat fits… Those who don’t like to be called out for their sexism should stop having sexist behaviours.

          • “these white, privileged Christian MEN don’t want to argue or debate this”
            Thanks for following up that racist, sexist and all around bigoted tirade.

            And exactly what sexist behaviour have I demonstrated? Wanting to condemn sex-selection abortions (which are typically girls)? Or am I simply sexist for disagreeing with you, despite the fact that I didn’t even know your gender until you started whining about sexism?

            Get a Clue

          • But they ARE white, privileged, Christian MEN actively campaigning to take away a woman’s right to control her life and her body. Don’t be mad at me for calling the truth, dude.

            As for sexism: well you seem to agree with the ideas and principles of those sexist MPs such as Woodworth and Warawa. That would make you a sexist as well. Unless you suddently now believe women have the right to control when and if they have children?

            Again, you are not sexist for disagreeing with me. You are sexist for agreeing with sexist MPs who seek to go back to the 1950s and take away women’s fundamental rights. As I’ve said, you can disagree with me as much as you want. That’s not the issue. The issue is that you agree with those attempting to make decisions for women, controlling their lives and options. It’s called sexism, misogyny and patriarchy.

          • Sometimes I’m in a pinch and think it would beneficial for me to steal some money from someone who can’t defend themselves. But don’t worry–you don’t have to undergo the act of stealing! How dare you force your beliefs on me!

            (in other words: “This argument is both ridiculous and irrational.”).

  6. What now a woman has to prove she is not having an abortion because of the sex of the baby? Gimme a break.

  7. It’s great that the left is showing their true colors here. Won’t even support a statement saying that sex-selection abortion should be condemned. If that’s not enough for the House to issue a statement, surely getting an abortion because of a planned vacation would be perfectly acceptable. Yeeeesh.

  8. Every human being possesses an inviolable dignity, a dignity that is not granted by the state, not endowed by a court, not given by majority consent, and not recognized by scientists or even by parents who are the co-creators of that life. However, there resides in that life by the virtue of its very humanity an inviolable, inherent and inalienable dignity. For us in this place to begin to pass legislation which seeks to alienate that inalienable dignity crosses a moral Rubicon.
    We must learn from the lessons of the last century, the “century of tears” as some have called it, the most horrific period of which of course was the Nazi regime, which began and ended in an effort to manipulate human life for utilitarian purposes, to seek to improve the quality of life of those fully grown human beings deemed perfect, at the expense of those deemed imperfect or not fully developed.
    To take the life of individuals because of the circumstances of their life, be it their ethnicity, religion, age, social, economic condition or their physical or mental condition is to violate the very first premise upon which a society founded the rule of law to exist. That principle is the inviolable dignity of the human person.
    Lastly, this issue is not about restraining a woman’s rights it’s about protecting a persons right to life regardless of gender. Look at the current condition here in Canada. There has been a precedent set for even post birth abortion of a perfectly healthy baby. This is madness.
    This is my little rant after motion 312 was voted down in parliament. This motion was not to ban abortion but to seek government support on defining when a life is considered a life and worth protecting through DEBATE. Apparently the life of unborn children are not worth even a moments time to most members of parliament or it’s constituents. Finally I want to add that reading all 60 comments I lost count of the term “women’s rights” and “pro choice” that has been a long time tactic of your stance. What is tabled is the human right regardless of gender. And in response to someone that stated abortions aren’t done for the sake of it. In fact most are because they don’t fall into a persons sociological economic lifestyle at the said time. Many cases being young woman under 25 because of work.
    April Halkett gave birth to a baby boy at the Prince Albert, Saskatchewan Wal-Mart and walked out alone. The baby was found shortly afterward, and was saved. Charged with the crime of child abandonment, she was tried and acquitted in 2009. In April of 2005, 19-year old Albertan Katrina Effert gave birth to a baby boy in her parents’ home, strangled him with her underpants and threw the body into a neighbor’s yard. She got a suspended sentence.
    There are countless cases like these where newborn children are left for dead or killed. And you “pro choice” supporters surely have to oppose such acts. And many of these cases stem from postpartum depression or mental health issues but there is an underlining issue here. And that is the courts have set a precedence for convicting these woman. As if giving a lengthy sentence would “infringe” or stifle the “woman’s right” to murder.
    So now we have cases for other judges to look upon and hand out sentences in similar fashion. Canada is a great country but it makes me sick to know that other countries view us as baby killers. Look at our lack of laws around abortion. It isn’t ILLEGAL to have an abortion at any term of pregnancy. That should say enough right there.
    The late Christopher Hitchens once wrote, “…Anyone who has ever seen a sonogram or has spent even an hour with a textbook on embryology knows that the emotions are not the deciding factor in abortion. In order to terminate a pregnancy, you have to still a heartbeat, switch off a developing brain, and, whatever the method, break some bones and rupture some organs.”
    Once again this is all about rights not about taking them away. This is about having a voice for the voiceless.

    • Kevin, how old were the “girls” who gave birth and abandoned their babies in the examples you provided? We have read countless stories of highschool students giving birth on toilets at their schools and dropping the babies in the garbage cans at the schools. There are big issues going on in these instances related to teen sex without education regarding birthcontrol and parents who have NO CLUE what their children are up to and who believe if they keep their daughters in the dark about birthcontrol and keep preaching abstinence, everything will be hunky dory. These girls are so clued out, they would rather risk murdering a baby then disclose to their parents that they are pregnant and risk what….getting (gasp) grounded.
      To suggest that a first trimester abortion (which is by FAR the most common type of abortion) is in anyway similar to the murder of a newborn is obscene. You are right. It is not illegal for a physician….a licensed, board-certified, Canadian physician to perform a therapeutic abortion on his/her “patient” during any trimester of the pregnancy. Given that the physician has taken an oath to do “no harm”, he/she will only be performing therapeutic abortions in the later trimesters if completely necessary. Why do you doubt the integrity of Canadian physicians and Canadian hospital boards? Do you really believe that Canadian hospitals would allow late-term abortions to occur in their buildings for any but the most dire reasons? Do you not realize that their are ethics committees that review any and all questionable medical cases? You talk about passing a law to ensure that abortions are only done in later trimesters if strictly necessary but you have no proof that this isn’t already exactly what is occuring in Canada so what is your real agenda?

  9. So let me get this straight: All of you opposed to this motion think it’s a good thing to kill pre-born girls simply because they’re girls? Sounds a tad–might I say–anti-woman to me..

    (Note: I’m a woman, so that means I have a legitimate voice, right? Right.)

    And yes, yes, yes I know you’re “worried about opening the abortion debate”–but people: putting restrictions on abortion, such as abhorrent possibilities like sex-selection, is exactly what the 1988 Morgentaler decision called for through the words of immaculately-feminist Justice Bertha Wilson–which has never happened. Get with it. We have no laws only by default rather than rationality, and are beat out in our laws only by Korea and China (you know.. Communist, anti-debate, Tiananmen’s Square-student-shooting, forced-abortion China…). Are Western nations with a few restrictions also anti-woman? Germany? Austria? Italy? This is absurd. If we can’t rationally discuss anymore, I’m ashamed to be Canadian.

    • There is no evidence that abortion is being used as a gender-selection tool in Canada. Given that physicians provide access to therapeutic abortions, they will have to screen patients to ensure that their patients aren’t using abortion to kill unwanted baby girls. Given that abortions aren’t done after 12 weeks except in unusual circumstances (regardless of the law), withholding information about the sex of the fetus could be a simple way to rule this out.

Sign in to comment.