Who wants to debate abortion? - Macleans.ca

Who wants to debate abortion?

Not the majority of Canadians

Ryan Remiorz/CP

Ryan Remiorz/CP

In the wake of Justin Trudeau’s clarification that he’ll whip all abortion-related votes in the House of Commons, Andrew Coyne, Chris Selley, Jen Gerson and Peter Loewen are variously concerned and Gerald Butts, a senior advisor to Mr. Trudeau, responds to the Post’s Andrew Coyne and Kelly McParland via Facebook.

But let’s take their arguments seriously for a moment, and ask the core question: why is abortion such a special issue for these gents? Why is it fascistic to insist MPs support party policy on women’s rights, but not, say, tax policy? Or same sex-marriage? Or health care?

They say this is a matter of “conscience”, a moral issue that separates it from other policy matters. Really? Abortion is a moral issue, but sending young men and women to die in war is not? Would these gents advocate free votes on military matters, or would they eviscerate a party for inconsistency if it dared suggest holding one. How about poverty? The Bishop of Rome called inequality the root of all evil on Earth. I look forward to all the Post pieces quoting the Pope on social justice matters. What about other Charter protected rights like freedom of expression? Would these journalists support a party policy that permitted MPs to vote in favour of restricting a free press?

Of course not. No, what they really mean is that this is a deeply held religious conviction for many people. I completely respect that, obviously. We as a party recognize that all members are free to hold whatever belief they wish. But all parties routinely (and consistently) require the religious observants among them to check their beliefs at the door on policies ranging from military service, to health care, to marriage equality.

The moral exception argument is, in short, hogwash. Demonstrably so if you think about it for more than a minute.

Second, these men all argue (to greater or lesser degrees) that it infringes upon the rights of Members of Parliament to insist that they vote a certain way on a policy matter. Others on twitter, especially Norman Spector, the retired diplomat and former Chief of Staff to Brian Mulroney (perhaps you’re noting a demographic pattern here), have called the policy a “diktat” or an “edict”. The clear implication is that it is somehow autocratic of Trudeau to impose this policy on an unsuspecting party.

They might have a point here, if the facts supported the contention, but they don’t. As noted, the party members voted to make the Party pro-choice in 2012. In 2013, while seeking the leadership of the party, Trudeau campaigned on precisely this policy. We announced it in Winnipeg, just before the leadership debate, which all of these gentlemen presumably noted or covered.

After publicly announcing his intention to do just what we did, Trudeau was given an overwhelming mandate by his party. The policy has been operative since we started green-lighting candidates in 2014. So the democratic legitimacy point is at least as weak as the moral exception argument. It is just a bit lazier to argue it, since the facts that contradict it are so easily verifiable.

So what is it then? Why the allergic reaction to this policy? I am not going to do what Coyne did, and make up an offensive motive so I can shoot it down and question the integrity of the person I impose it on.

I don’t think that’s fair, and in this case it’s not necessary. You can judge why these gentlemen, writing in the National Post, are so illogical and vitriolic about the Liberal Party’s policy to support women’s rights.

Sometimes, as the lawyers say, res ipsa loquitur: the thing speaks for itself.

Arguments that we should have a debate about abortion or that there is a debate to be had or that it reflects poorly on us that we haven’t settled on a specific set of laws around abortion can point to polling data that shows our current legal situation doesn’t reflect our collective opinions. But polling data also shows a general reluctance to debate abortion.

An Abacus poll in 2011 found that 52% agreed with the idea that “When discussing matters of life and death there is never a bad time for debate. We shouldn’t be afraid to debate tough” issues, but just because we don’t think we should be afraid of the debate, we don’t seem particularly eager to have. As of January 2013, 59% of respondents to an Angus Reid poll agreed with the statement that “There is no point reopening a debate about abortion in Canada right now.” According to this compilation of polls, an Angus Reid poll three years earlier found the exact same result—59% opposed. (A 2010 Ipsos Reid poll found a plurality—46%—thought the government should leave the issue alone.)

Actual support for a debate stood at 30% in January 2013. And it would be interesting to know what sort of priority those people would put on the issue. In terms of federal public policy, how many would consider a debate on abortion to be among, say, their top five concerns?

If Justin Trudeau, Stephen Harper and Thomas Mulcair have basically joined forces to block change, they can at least count on a certain reluctance to do anything different. If we use Motion 312 as a proxy, you could even say the House of Commons is roughly in line with public opinion—of the 304 MPs who voted on that motion in 2012, 67% opposed it.

What could change this collective reluctance? I think Jen Gerson identifies the reality in her piece—unless a problem with the current situation is demonstrated, it’s hard to imagine there being any great desire to change anything.

This is why I, personally, don’t support legal restrictions. In light of the professional standards of practice, they’re unnecessary. However, pro-choice advocates better keep their fingers crossed that a rogue Kermit Gosnell-like figure doesn’t surface in some backwater shack in this country.

If our lack of regulation made it impossible to prosecute such a creature, my guess is that public sentiment would turn right quick.

This perhaps makes abortion not unlike most issues of public policy. Minus a great desire or obvious need for change, there is no change.


Comments on this story are now closed.


Who wants to debate abortion?

  1. I agree. The govt has no business deciding the morality of Canadians.

    This means on abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, drugs, clothing and so on.

    ‘An it harm no one, do as thou will’

    • Couple of points to clarify:

      1. Just a few years ago…Trudeau was opposed to abortion.
      2. Given that we are forced to pay for abortion on demand, I’d say that the procedure is not closed for debate.
      3. I agree the Government has no business dictating our morality……now if only they would quit trying to do just that.
      4. There should be a limit on when abortions (mother, er, carrier, not in danger) can be permitted. You can abort a child the day before it is due, and neither the mother, or the abortionist will face any legal sanctions.
      5. If you want to know why point #4 is important….google, “Kermit Gosnell” . He’s killed more people than Ted bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Green River killer, etc…..COMBINED.

      If you want me to stay out of your womb…….then stay out of my wallet.

      • Regarding 4, how often does this happen – and if so, what legal sanctions would you suggest?

        • That’s the point….we don’t KNOW how often this happens. I would suspect that most doctors would refuse such a late term abortion simply because they know the child would be viable, and that abortion in that case would be murder.

          As for legal sanctions…..if the unborn child is almost fully devloped, then of course it would be murder, and the Dr. should be held accountable. The (potential) mother would be another matter, as I suppose her state of mind would need to be considered. I don’t think most women make the decision to abort lightly; though there is a recent video of some confused and deluded woman who filmed her own abortion and posted it online as some sick type of “empowerment” video.

          I just want to be sure this type of horror isn’t happening in Canada.


          As an aside. I’m actually pro-choice, but I’m pro-choice with a few caveats.
          1. No abortion after 20 weeks unless the mother is in danger.
          2. If you can afford it, pay for it yourself. (and the guy who got you pregnant)

          Of course, for the strident pro-lifers who don’t think ANY abortion should be permissible, then I would suggest that they not complain when Government has to step in to help support these kids if/when they are born.

          Men’s rights: currently they have none in this debate; though some don’t think this is a problem. There is a huge double-standard.

        • It doesn’t.

        • Again Bram, you argue against yourself

          Gayle IS right, and JH IS wrong.

          The nyah nyah is in your head.

          • Then she should have stated her case. That would be the mature way to discuss. The exchange above sounds like five-year-olds.

          • Just so I am clear, if someone asserts something, the assertion magically comes true merely by asserting it, and disputing it requires proof.

            I guess next time James calls Trudeau stupid I better be prepared to produce his IQ tests?

      • Cool! See, as a taxpayer, my money is used to fund every body else’s kids. Does this mean I can now refuse to cover child bonuses, health care (for baby and mom) and all subsequent costs related to raising that child?

        No? Well then I guess you don’t have a point then.

        • This comment has been removed.

  2. Yes, yes, yes.

    I am so tired of the anti-choice crowd deciding they have the right to debate this in the first place. They are the minority, but they sure do shout a lot.

    And that includes the two liberal bloggers who are whining about Trudeau too.

    • Sorry, Gayle – while I am pro-choice, I have a VERY hard time with other pro-choicers who say things like “I am so tired of the anti-choice crowd deciding they have the right to debate…”

      This is still a democracy. Debate should not be blocked simply because you don’t like the discussion. It’s when you refuse a voice to a minority that it turns to violence.

      Gays are a minority too. No, I’m not suggesting the anti-abortion side needs a change in law (they have the right to choose life for themselves, and that’s plenty – they should NOT have the right to enforce their beliefs on others) – but the same attitude toward debate (they are a minority so they should just shut up) would have kept them from gaining equal rights under the law.

      If you don’t want participate in the debate, just tune them out.

      • I don’t think your reading Trudeaus message properly. He never said if your pro-life you cant join the party, I think he said the liberal party is a pro-life party and that anyone who wants to join will have to vote with the party on pro-life issues and not with their conscience. That didn’t sound like he wouldn’t except pro-life members into the party.

        • Are you replying to the above post, or one that I made on an earlier story which actually stated Trudeau would not accept pro-lifers as candidates? I did express concerns on that earlier article, but Trudeau has since clarified; my post above is explicitly in reply to Gayle, not to the article above.

      • I completely disagree. Why is MY bodily integrity and autonomy subject to anyone else’s opinion? As I said earlier, if we do not tolerate “debates” on whether people should be judged according to the colour of their skin, then why is it ok to debate this?

        That said, I would be more open to debates if we also debated things like forced blood donation, forced bone marrow donation, forced kidney donation or forced sperm donation. But we don’t, even though al of these things involve life or death.

        I will not tune out the debates. I will always question your right to debate the topic in the first place. Last I heard our rights to personal autonomy are not subject to the whims of the “majority”.

        • One time, our society at large didn’t tolerate debates on skin colour or sexuality; we told gays and people of colour that they were minorities; to shut up; they didn’t matter. Same with women’s right to vote; access to abortion; etc. Eventually, though, we had those discussions, and things changed. Not to the extent, in every case, that they should, but at least the laws changed.

          The people who didn’t want to have those discussions felt they were right in trying to silence those who wanted change. Do you think it would have been right if they succeeded in keeping those people oppressed?

          There have no doubt been debates where the status quo was retained, as well, and it was good – though none come immediately to mind.

          When I was younger, I was, myself, pro-life. While I still think that too many treat abortion much more casually than they should (i.e. they look on it as just another form of birth control, no different than the pill or a condom), it is the very act of having discussions and debates with others that won me over to the pro-choice side. Telling me to shut up definitely would have had the opposite effect – I can be a stubborn cuss, so such an attitude would likely have hardened my pro-life views.

          Part of the argument that won me over was that this is a democracy, and that while we can hold differing views on issues, in a pluralistic society such as ours we should not be trying to force our beliefs on others.

          So, Gayle, if you really want to make progress and ensure that we remain pro-choice, then engage in the discussion. DON’T tell people to STFU. Anyone has a right to discuss whatever they want. You don’t have to like it. That’s the price of freedom.

        • Gayle asked:
          “Why is MY bodily integrity and autonomy subject to anyone else’s opinion? ”

          The debate is not about the integrity of YOUR body…….it’s about the integrity of an unborn human being that you may be carrying.

          I’m not really surprised that your first and only consideration is about yourself. Seems to be a Liberal trait.

    • the “right to debate?”

      yeah…pretty much sums up the Liberal mindset.

      “you disagree with me……..then shut up”

    • “I am so tired of the anti-choice crowd deciding they have the right to debate this in the first place. They are the minority, but they sure do shout a lot.”

      What a lovely little fascist you are. Let’s try that with a few others and see how well this works.

      “I am so tired of the black community deciding they have the right to debate this in the first place. They are the minority, but they sure do shout a lot.”

      “I am so tired of the gay community deciding they have the right to debate this in the first place. They are the minority, but they sure do shout a lot.”

      • Sigh

        I know this is hard for you John, but maybe try reading all of my comments (since you obviously have difficulty reading plain English).

        I will help you out by rewriting yours:

        “I am so tired of the white community deciding they have the right to debate equality for the black community”


        “I am so tired of the religious community deciding they have the right to debate whether gay people should have equal rights”

        We do not condone those debates in the political sphere any more. You know why? Because we recognize that the “black community” and the “gay community” have rights that are not debatable.

        So why don’t you think that about women?

        • Ah, Gayle – if only it were that simple!

          You sound like one of those “biology deniers”. Let’s face it – the pro-lifers are the ones with science on their side in this one. A zygote is the earliest stage of human life. To continue the game you started, how about “I am so tired of child murderers deciding the rights of unborn children.” (Yes, I’m being deliberately provocative.)

          The reality – and the problem – is, both sides have legitimate claims. We have TWO living organisms, of the same species, and the battle is over whose rights should dominate.

          An awful lot of pro-choicers try to pretend this isn’t so. They presumably would argue a caterpillar is not alive because it can’t fly yet.

          Then there are those like me, who acknowledges both sides, who has struggled with the issues, and has settled on the uncomfortable compromise of siding with choice after deciding that, in the balance of competing rights, the host organism has the edge because she has proven her ability to survive. And because I have a hard time condemning someone – especially if a victim of incest or rape – to the additional, cruel and unusual punishment of carrying that unwanted child to term.

          Society currently sides with the host organism. Somewhere down the road, that may change. Once, women were treated as property; society evolved. Maybe history will determine is we pro-choicers who are the unevolved.

          You may not like that idea. But when you try to silence your opponents, you lose moral ground. You more resemble the men trying to silence the suffragettes than you do the pioneers we now admire.

          • Oh Keith – I wish you would stop behaving like this. You are usually so rational, and here you are calling me a “pro abortion zealot” and suggesting I am like Emily (who I know you dislike, so you are clearly intending to insult me). You do all this rather than address my core argument, which you have steadfastly ignored in favour of insulting me.

            You can talk about anything you like. I am not trying to silence you. If you want to talk about how gay people are evil you can do that too. Just do not complain because that discussion is no longer acceptable as a political one.

            I am well aware of there is all kinds of science on this – and accept that doctors make the medical decisions they do based on that science. And of course, those decisions include performing abortions.

            I also accept that, if we are going to force someone to sacrifice their bodily integrity for the sake of someone else’s life, then we cannot stop at mothers. The only way to be intellectually consistent is to include mandatory organ and blood donation and all kinds of other things. In fact, that argument is even stronger, because I am talking about living breathing human beings. Did you know we cannot force a father to donate his kidney to save his son’s life? Sure, he probably would do it anyway, but according to your argument we should still make it mandatory. I mean, he fathered the kid – he is responsible for his life and must make all the bodily sacrifices that requires. When I see people marching on Parliament Hill demanding this law in addition to banning abortion, I might start having more sympathy with their position.

            Now I am going to end this, because despite the way you have conducted yourself tonight, and despite the fact I am starting to believe you are not really pro-life and only pretending to be because you think it makes you sound more objective, I actually like you. It is my hope that I am wrong about my suspicion that you are pretending, and that you are able to accept this post as me genuinely trying to prevent further argument between us. I will let you decide how you want this to end.

          • Oh Keith – I wish you would step back and take a look at what you are doing here. First you call me a “pro-abortion zealot”, and then you compare me to Emily (and since I know you do not like her I assume that was meant as an insult). You do all this, and yet ignore my core point.

            I am well aware that there is all kinds of science on this issue. I am pretty sure doctors are aware of that science too. In fact, that is why I support that any restrictions be imposed by the scientists, and not the politicians.

            I agree there are two sides to this issue – it is just that I see those sides as being far more expansive than you. Either we compel human beings to sacrifice their bodily integrity to save others, or we do not. Either we compel father’s to donate a kidney to their sick children, or we leave it to their own conscience. Frankly I am good with either one – just so long as it is consistently applied to everyone, and not inconsistently applied to pregnant women.

            In any event, I am hoping we can end this now. I am afraid I am beginning to suspect that you are not really pro-choice, but rather pretending to be so because you think it makes you appear more objective than some of the others who have posted here. I do not know, and frankly I do not care. We are getting nowhere and I am not interested in continuing to argue in this fashion with someone I would prefer to respect. I will leave it to you how you want to proceed.

          • Meant to add:

            I am not trying to silence you. You have the same right to discuss this as you would to discuss how all people of colour are inferiour to white people. I am not opposed to free speech.

            That does not mean I accept this is something that should be discussed in Parliament. Unless, as I said above, this is part of a larger discussion of whether all human beings should be forced to sacrifice our bodily integrity – and we both know no one is interested in that discussion because, of course, we all recognize that we have autonomy over our own bodies.

          • This comment has been removed.

  3. Im finally glad we have a leader in this country who thinks adults should be able to be adults.

    • with one caveat GEO ORWELL…….

      That only applies to those adults who think late-term unborn children should not have the protection required; or opportunity to become adults themselves.

    • Really? Making the decision for you on how you must vote means he’s treating you like an adult?


      Have another pitcher of Kool-Aid buddy.

      • What does it matter to you what people choose to do with their own lives, how does it affect you ? If I wanna commit suicide in my own home, how is that affecting you and others like you. Its none of your business what I do to my life or body. Since when did people like you and others who agree with you, become moral police.

        • I agree. We need to get religion out of govt. It’s no one else’s business what you do with your body.

          SocCreds now known as Cons want a ‘debate’ on something already decided by the majority. Trouble is they keep wanting to drag everyone else into their little conflabs.

          • Many people who have doubts about abortion are not religious. Believe it or not emily…people don’t need a GOD to tell them that the current “free for all” we have in Canada as far as abortion is concerned, is concerning.

            But again…just for your benefit. As I’ve said before, i’m pro-choice up to a point, but I still would prefer the procedure wasn’t necessary. Here’s one reason why.


          • Stop getting your info from bumper stickers, photo-shopped pix and the Daily Mail.

            People who are keen on forced pregnancies are bible-thumpers and white supremacists. Not atheists.

            If you don’t like abortions….don’t have one.

            Leave other people alone.

        • Let’s make a comparison. You ask, “What does it matter to you what people choose to do with their own lives, how does it affect you ?”

          It doesn’t affect me personally, but neither does it affect me personally when I read a story about a child being killed in traffic. It still however, is painful to know that it happened, and as a father I am saddened by the death of a child and wish it had not happened.

          If you want to commit suicide in your own home…that also doesn’t affect me. If however, you decide to kill your kids in the process…..my opinion of you would be certainly negative.

          There are a lot of things that happen which do not affect us personally, but unless you have a void where your basic humantiy should be…it affects us all the same.

          As for this comment in your post: “Since when did people like you and others who agree with you, become moral police.”

          That of course is the most hypocritical line I’ve read in a while. The MORALITY POLICE can be found in many groups…and they usually describe themselves as “progressives”. These folks can mainly be found trying to stop speakers at University with whom they disagree. Or….you can just watch the NDP.

      • The choice here is to be or not to be a candidate for the Liberal Party.

        Can you be a member of Pro-Life group and use their resources to promote the pro-choice side?

        Political parties, like Pro-Life groups, are private organizations.

        • Yes, in Canada, only the pro-abortion side gets tax money for their “cause”

  4. If that was supposed to be a reply to me, James….a source for the Trudeau remark is needed…..

    We pay for all medical procedures….like care for smokers and drinkers….and for people who ski and crack up, and a multitude of other things. There is no pick-and-choose ….for anybody.

    Yes, if the govt took all restrictions off morality it would be wonderful….drugs would be legal, so would euthanasia….even clothing would change.

    Children aren’t aborted the day before they’re born…..stop getting your science from bumper stickers.

    I’m sorry but your wallet isn’t a factor in this

    • “Children aren’t aborted the day before they’re born…”

      True. Yet you have argued against me in the past when I have suggested that we should have a law that should give late-stage babies in the womb the same legal protections as preemies at the same stage (allowing for exceptions where those rights would clash with the mother’s). Humanness should not be determined by which side of the uterine wall you are on, but on stage of development i.e. you get rights if you are capable of surviving outside the womb.

      If there are no late-stage abortions, then why would such a law be a problem for you?

      • You’ve argued every which way on every topic….so I don’t pay much attention to any of it.

        However no one ‘aborts’ a baby the day before it’s born….it’s simply born. Babies come early and late without having anything to do with abortion.

        Late term abortions, which are all handled in the US…. involve babies born with brains outside their heads, or no lungs….that kind of thing. That’s why we don’t need laws on it. It’s a medical problem….not a matter of morality

        You know all this….you just keep chatting on it.

        • You keep dodging the issue: Our law currently supports the absurd notion that which side of the uterine wall you’re on determines humanness. Because you are afraid that acknowledging equivalence between a late-term baby in the womb and a preemie MIGHT, somehow, create a slippery slope that will lead to an end to abortions.

          As to my arguing “every which way on every topic…” Utter nonsense; I challenge you to find a single example.

          I take consistent stands on all issues, unless someone proves me wrong. You, on the other hand, are the poster child for logical inconsistency. And have yet to figure out how to read for comprehension (e.g., in the above exchange, I agreed with you on the late-term abortion issue, yet you attacked me on that point as if I were arguing against you) or use a dictionary. And when challenged, you either dodge the issue at hand, make things up, or attack the character of the person who challenged you. Like now.

          If you want to address the actual issue I raised, I look forward to hearing from you. But if you’re just gonna spout nonsense about me… don’t bother replying.

          • AHAHAHAHAHAHA…..so you do it again!

            We don’t HAVE a law on abortion, Bram.

            And there has been nothing involving ‘humanness’ in the law. It’s viability that matters. A foetus of 15 weeks will not survive no matter what. A late term foetus with no brain, or a heart outside the body won’t survive either.

            Before birth, the mother makes the decision.

            You don’t RAISE any issues, you simply ramble on about a variety of things with no particular stand

            You, James and John are flogging a dead horse. The issue was decided without you [as it should be] years ago….and the constitution backs it up.

    • Emily, as most others’ of your “ilk”……

      You just cannot see; or refuse to recognize the difference between paying for people to live, and being forced to pay for them to die.

      I’m in favour of the former, but frown upon the latter.

      As for getting info from bumper stickers…sorry. It happened, and the Dr. is now jailed for life, and I hope he suffers there until he kicks off. You may note, Aaron’s column also mentions this fine “women’s health care provider” in his story. Some bumper sticker.


  5. The Canadian Medical Association defines an abortion as “active termination of a pregnancy before fetal viability

    20 weeks would appear to be where they draw that line (right at the same place Texas just introduced their supposedly “restrictive” policy on abortion).


    Question to the pro-abortion zealots here…

    Is the CMA “deciding the morality of Canadians?” Are they restricting a woman’s right to choose? Shall we just burn their head office to the ground?

    • 20 weeks is pretty much the world standard. Before that point the fetus won’t survive.

      Many women have a spontaneous abortion…that’s the biggest number of abortions on the planet….doctors fight to save them, but it’s chancy.

      • World standard. Hmm. Really?

        Because when Abortion Barbie was doing her famous “pink sneaker” filibuster of Texas’s new abortion law, which restricts abortion after…yep, 20 weeks…she called it “the most anti-woman, anti-family legislation that Texas has ever seen.”

        You agreed with her. You even thought she might become President over it.

        Now you call it a world standard?

        Make up your freaking mind.


    • By the way, the Chair, President, and President-Elect of the CMA who basically enforce the equivalent of Texas’ new restrictive abortion standards here in Canada are all men.

      Shall I get the torches and pitchforks?

      • You don’t rescue anyone before 20-21 weeks. They’re not viable.

        That’s the standard…a viability standard. You can of course have an abortion after that time.

        PS Texas is barbaric….don’t go by them on anything.

    • First of all, there is no such thing as a pro abortion zealot, so stop lying (I know that’s hard for you, but try).

      Second, it is perfectly acceptable for a doctor to choose whether or not to perform a medical procedure. That is their choice. The medical profession, like many other professions, have ethical guidelines that they agree to abide by. This is, off course, completely different from criminalizing the conduct.

      Anyhoo, your question is irrelevant anyway. See, women who are pregnant when they don’t want to be, want the pregnancy terminated asap. They won’t wait.

      • Yes, there are pro-abortion (or, at least, pro-choice) zealots. Emily is one; you are increasingly sounding like another.

        • The difference isn’t between men and women….it’s between the ignorant and the intelligent.

          Texas lives mainly in the Dark Ages

          • She’s not pro-abortion because she filmed it.

            If you film heart surgery, are you pro-heart attack?

            If you film brain surgery, are you pro-stroke?

            Get a grip John

        • No one is pro-abortion. You are either pro or anti-choice.

          • “But you were arguing upthread that anyone not on your side should not have the right to speak.”

            No, I was saying this is cannot be a political debate any longer. This is a thread about Trudeau saying the issue is settled. And politically, it is. The law recognizes a woman has autonomy over her own body, and I will not tolerate a political debate over whether that should be taken away.

        • First, we disagree. This is normal and should be acceptable. No need for name calling.

          There is a significant difference between being pro-choice, which I am, and being pro-abortion, which no one is. I will not allow John, or you, to lower this debate by suggesting people who are pro-choice are fanatical in their pursuit of abortions. This is about being pro-choice. Personally, I would not have an abortion, but that is
          irrelevant to whether I am pro-choice.

          At the end of the day for me this is not even about abortion. It is about being able to control my own body.

          • This was meant to be a reply to Keith.

          • I repeat. If you film your abortion as a goddamn promotional brochure for the procedure, that’s significantly more than being just pro choice.

          • Yes, it’s filming a procedure as a public service.

            Give your head a shake.

          • “First, we disagree. This is normal and should be acceptable.”

            That disagreeing is normal and acceptable has been my argument from the beginning. But you were arguing upthread that anyone not on your side should not have the right to speak.

            Which is why I labelled you a pro-choice zealot.

            Other than your desire to silence others I’m very much a free speech advocate), our views are not overly dissimilar.

      • Gayle noted:
        “Anyhoo, your question is irrelevant anyway. See, women who are pregnant when they don’t want to be, want the pregnancy terminated asap. They won’t wait.”

        Let me help you clarify your points.
        “Anyhoo, your question is irrelevant anyway. See, women who are pregnant when they don’t want to be, call it a fetus so they won’t have to admit to what they are doing, whereas those who want to be pregnant, refer to the growing bump as a “baby” They can’t wait.

  6. “If you film your abortion as a goddamn promotional brochure for the procedure, that’s significantly more than being just pro choice.”

    Even if I were to accept this, which I do not, who here on this board has talked about filming an abortion?

    Answer – no one.

    So maybe you should reconsider this comment:

    “Question to the pro-abortion zealots here…”

  7. I have no idea who is replying to who anymore, so am reposting my comment here:

    “But you were arguing upthread that anyone not on your side should not have the right to speak.”

    No, I was saying this is cannot be a political debate any longer. This is a thread about Trudeau saying the issue is settled. And politically, it is. The law recognizes a woman has autonomy over her own body, and I will not tolerate a political debate over whether that should be taken away.

    • Agreed. It’s over with. Has been for years actually.

    • Thank you for clarifying, Gayle. Your earlier posts did not specify “in Parliament” and so I took them to mean “anywhere.” Hence my free speech comments. I am not a fan of censorship (to put it mildly).

      I really don’t think there is a chance in hell that Canadian politicians, as a group, would have enough backbone to tackle this issue. Banning a politician from running for a party because of personal views (as Trudeau first seemed to have stated but backed away from), however, is taking things a bit far. As long as the individual promises not to pursue legislation on the issue, that person should be allowed to run for nomination.

      • OK – but that still does not explain the name calling (being against free speech does not mean I am fanatical about pursuing abortions). But whatever, I guess this is as far as you will go.