![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hel_anaIn response to the latest "but I'm just asking *questions* and raising reasonable points" letter in the Record, I have once again put pixels to screen. We'll see how the Record feels about this one.
Regarding Big, big questions, Friday Dec 30, 2011
In his letter, Mr. Matan suggests we google Europe's abortion rates, a suggestion designed to refer to a BBC report on European abortion restrictions. The BBC report lists 27 European countries and their abortion restrictions. He seems to imply that reasonable countries regulate abortion. However, it must be noted that more than a third of the countries listed actually have higher abortion rates than does Canada, according to the work of Wm. Robert Johnston, who has compiled a list of Percentage of Pregnancies Aborted by Country (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/wrjp334pd.html). And the number of abortions in Canada is steadily decreasing.
It's almost as if the restrictions placed on abortion (or lack thereof) have almost no impact on the actual rate of abortions or whether they trend up or down.
Currently, Canada does something revolutionary: it trusts women to make decisions. It allows women, in consultation with their partners and doctors, to do the crucial work of balancing and re-balancing conflicting rights and responsibilities when it comes to abortion. And the women of Canada, along with their doctors, are doing that at least as well as the governments and medical panels of European countries. The vast majority of abortions in Canada (over 90%) occur before the 12 week mark used by most of the European countries in the BBC report.
It is unclear to me why we should pass a law restricting abortion when we are having comparable results to Europe without one. The effect of a European-style restriction would presumably be to enforce what is already happening; it is, or should be, generally considered unnecessary to legislate the status quo.
Regarding Big, big questions, Friday Dec 30, 2011
In his letter, Mr. Matan suggests we google Europe's abortion rates, a suggestion designed to refer to a BBC report on European abortion restrictions. The BBC report lists 27 European countries and their abortion restrictions. He seems to imply that reasonable countries regulate abortion. However, it must be noted that more than a third of the countries listed actually have higher abortion rates than does Canada, according to the work of Wm. Robert Johnston, who has compiled a list of Percentage of Pregnancies Aborted by Country (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/wrjp334pd.html). And the number of abortions in Canada is steadily decreasing.
It's almost as if the restrictions placed on abortion (or lack thereof) have almost no impact on the actual rate of abortions or whether they trend up or down.
Currently, Canada does something revolutionary: it trusts women to make decisions. It allows women, in consultation with their partners and doctors, to do the crucial work of balancing and re-balancing conflicting rights and responsibilities when it comes to abortion. And the women of Canada, along with their doctors, are doing that at least as well as the governments and medical panels of European countries. The vast majority of abortions in Canada (over 90%) occur before the 12 week mark used by most of the European countries in the BBC report.
It is unclear to me why we should pass a law restricting abortion when we are having comparable results to Europe without one. The effect of a European-style restriction would presumably be to enforce what is already happening; it is, or should be, generally considered unnecessary to legislate the status quo.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-12-30 12:20 pm (UTC)Well, first off, his "facts' are not entirely correct
He says Five seconds before she emerges, she can be legally killed by a lethal injection and nobody could say a thing. which implies No rights at all for the unborn.
I refer you to: http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResources/familylaw/lawarticle-27/abortion-law-in-canada.aspx
In 1996, a pregnant Ottawa woman, Brenda Drummond, tried to kill herself or her foetus by discharging a pellet gun into her vagina.
The pellet lodged into the foetus' head. A few days later, she gave birth in the bathroom of her home. The baby was born alive. Emergency surgery saved it's life when an x-ray revealed the pellet in the child's head.
Prosecutors were at a loss as to what crime, if any, she had committed. Finally, it occurred to them that for ignoring the risk to the baby in not disclosing the firearm discharge, she had endangered the child.
She was charged under s. 215 of the Criminal Code, which requires a parent to provide necessaries of life for their children, was convicted and was given a suspended sentence.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-30 03:43 pm (UTC)My basic problem with the late term abortion argument -- or, at the most ridiculous end of the spectrum, the "5 seconds before birth" argument -- is that it shows a profound disrespect for the judgement of both women and their doctors. Women don't go through five or six months of a wanted pregnancy and then decide to have an abortion on a whim. Doctors don't do late term abortions without a damned good reason.
What I *want* to say, not that you can say this in a letter to the editor is "fuck you, buddy.. the less than 2% of women who need an abortion past the 20th week DO NOT NEED YOUR SHIT. They are dealing with a painful, difficult thing and struggling to make sense of their suddenly shattered lives, and I would bet money you have never had to deal with anything even a tenth as hard or heartbreaking. So fuck yourself, and leave them the fuck alone with your "rational inquiry". These are peoples *lives*, fucker, not your goddamned philosophy class."