"Woodworth Says Opponents of M312 Must Give Up Single-Minded Preoccupation with Abortion"
That's the headline about Motion 312 that should have been applied to every commentary.
The word "abortion" seemed to cast an hypnotic spell over MPs who spoke against Motion 312 in the Parliamentary debate, causing them to suspend thoughtful analysis and abandon time-honoured Canadian values and institutions.
Protect the independence of backbencher MPs against increasing irrelevance? No, some said, our preoccupation with abortion leads us to demand that the Prime Minister be given a veto over the independence private members' business!
Require every law to honestly reflect reality? No, they say, our preoccupation with abortion leads us to close our eyes to 21st century medical evidence and advances in understanding. It doesn't matter anyway, since our concern for abortion requires us to pretend or even lie that a child is not a human being until complete birth no matter what the evidence might reveal.
In the last Parliament, many of the same people who spoke against M312 were asked to legally denounce men who coerce women into abortion. However, they replied, their preoccupation with abortion did not permit them to agree to protect women from that!
Encourage national reconciliation on issues important to millions of Canadians by encouraging respectful, consensus-building dialogue? Goodness no, our preoccupation with abortion means we must not give an inch of compromise or tolerate an ounce of dissent!
Share your vote on Facebook so your friends can take this poll
Support a study about how best in Canada to honour the principle that human rights must be extended to every human being? No, our preoccupation with abortion tells us that studying how best to recognize the equal and inherent worth and dignity of every human being would be "the first step on a slippery slope," one said.
That last sentiment is more worthy of a bloodthirsty, fascist regime than of the democracy most of us would like Canada to be. The person who expressed that very alarming idea was undoubtedly too blinded by his personal preoccupation with abortion to realize that the proposed study he was maligning was about subsection 223(1), a law which denies that every human being has an equal and inherent dignity and worth.
Freeze in time forever a 400-year-old law? But of course, our personal preoccupation with abortion demands no less! Declare our legal definition of human being to be forever immune from democratic review? Of course, what else would our single-minded focus on abortion allow us to do? Render a 400-year-old definition of human being forever immune from strides in medical knowledge and advances in modern understanding? Our preoccupation with abortion demands it!
Those who wrote or spoke in opposition to Motion 312 seem to believe they have only to shout "abortion" in the crowded theatre of Canadian politics and then stand back to watch the fleeing crowd of politicians trample Canada's most cherished ideals. Some of those who spoke in the debate seem to feel that the word "abortion" is, figuratively speaking, a magical incantation that will enchant or mesmerize all but the most clear-thinking politicians, seducing them to abandon every other important value -- including any democratic institution, any devotion to honest laws, and any recognition of the equal and inherent worth of every human being. But the mesmerizing effect of the word "abortion" doesn't hold that much sway outside of the House of Commons.
Canadians across our land are beginning to realize the damage to our democratic institutions and principles being done by those whose single-minded, intransigent and extreme preoccupation with protecting our abortion practices leads to abandon essential Canadian ideals.
I have faith in the people of Canada. I am confident that the people of Canada, with persistence, can win the argument that democratic institutions, the necessity for laws to honestly reflect reality, and the grave necessity to recognize the equal and inherent worth and dignity of every human being are more important than any personal preoccupation with abortion. This consensus already exists among the vast majority of Canadians and will in time also reach the floor of the House of Commons.
Canadians must continue to believe in progress and to have faith in the future. Science and advances in modern understanding will drag Parliament into the 21st century despite the vote on Motion 312. Twenty-first century medical realities will prevent Parliament from shielding subsection 223(1) forever. The sweep of history is on the side of justice and human rights.
Loading Slideshow
Where The Parties Stand On Abortion
Here's a look at the official position of Canada's federal parties, and how the controversial debate has reared its head in recent years.
<em>With files from CBC</em>
Conservative Party
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has repeatedly said that he has no interest in addressing the issue head-on.<br><br>"As long as I am prime minister we are not opening the abortion debate," Mr. Harper said in April 2011. "The government will not bring forward any such legislation, and any such legislation that is brought forward will be defeated as long as I am prime minister." (CP)
NDP
NDP leader Tom Mulcair has stated that his caucus is unanimous in its opposition to the private member's motion calling on Parliament to look at whether a fetus is a human being, but he plans to force his MPs to vote along party lines.<br><br>"We're resolutely in favour of women's right to choose," Mulcair declared. (CP)
Liberal Party
Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae has stressed that the abortion issue is matter of individual conscience. Rae expressed his personal opposition to reopening the debate, but said Liberal MPs will be allowed to vote "their conscience" rather than force them to toe the party line.<br><br>"Our position on reproductive choice, my position on reproductive choice is very, very clear. It has been for decades. The position is it's a person's right to choose." (CP)
Planned Parenthood Funding Controversy
Saskatoon-Humboldt MP Brad Trost tells Saskatchewan's ProLife Association in April 2011 that the federal government has decided to cut funding to the International Planned Parenthood Federation, a decision he says was influenced by anti-abortion supporters.<br><br>"I cannot tell you specifically how we used it, but those petitions were very, very useful and they were part of what we used to defund Planned Parenthood because it has been an absolute disgrace that that organization and several others like it have been receiving one penny of Canadian taxpayers' dollars," Trost said.<br><br>Maurice Vellacott, a Conservative MP from Saskatoon-Wanuskewin, also calls for Planned Parenthood to be defunded.<br><br>Vellacott says the controversy over the funding "exposed the lies and destructiveness of IPPF's agenda."<br><br>"It exposes what this abortion giant is surreptitiously trying to achieve worldwide."<br><br>International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda approves funding. (CP)
'Coerced' Abortion Law
Conservative Winnipeg MP Rod Bruinooge proposes "Roxanne's Law" in 2010, a bill that would penalize anyone who "coerced" a woman into ending her pregnancy against her will.<br><br>"It's not just as simple as feeling pressured to get an abortion; there is a lot of discussion of sex-selection abortion these days, as well," Bruinooge told the Winnipeg Free Press. "It's part of the overall topic of intimidation that goes towards a pregnant woman."<br><br>Bruinooge insisted the bill wasn't meant to force Parliament to wade into the debate banned by Harper, stating that nothing in his bill made it illegal to abort a fetus.<br><br>But the Liberals and New Democrats saw it as a backdoor entry into the touchy topic.<br><br>"How is an abortion bill not an abortion bill?" said then-Liberal MP Anita Neville. "This certainly introduces discussion into the House of Commons and it is a rather sneaky way of doing it."<br><br>Then-NDP leader Jack Layton echoed her concerns. "You have got to wonder what is really going on here."<br><br>The bill was defeated in December of 2010, with 178 votes for and 97 against it. Harper and many Conservatives voted against it and 10 Liberals supported it. The NDP was unanimously against it. (Handout)
Maternal Health
International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda discloses for the first time in April 2011 that Canada will not fund abortions in its G8 child and maternal health-care initiative for developing countries.<br><br>Keith Martin, then-Liberal MP who had defected from the Tories years earlier, expressed outrage. "People here are perplexed and wondering why Canada is rolling back the clock and depriving women in developing countries from having the same rights to basic health care and access to abortion as women in Canada," he said.<br><br>Then-NDP leader Jack Layton accused the Tories of putting Canada on side with former U.S. president George Bush, who reduced support for abortion-related aid.<br><br>"It's picking up the banner that George Bush used to carry, and I think that that's not something that would be supported by the majority of Canadians, that's for sure," Layton said.<br><br>On June 25, Canada pledged $1.1 billion to a global initiative on maternal and child health for developing countries - a disproportionately high amount compared to other G8 countries. Canada did not allow for its share to be used in the funding of abortions. (CP)
Loading Slideshow
Which Cabinet Ministers Oppose Abortion?
The <a href="http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/index.php?p=Find_Your_MP" target="_hplink">Campaign Life Coalition provides a listing of MPs who support and oppose abortion rights</a>. The list is based on voting records, previous comments and questionnaire responses.
Here is a list of Conservative cabinet ministers who, according to the Coalition, oppose abortion. (CP)
Rob Nicholson
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. (CP)
Vic Toews
Minister of Public Safety. (CP)
Peter Van Loan
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. (CP)
Jason Kenney
Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. (CP)
Gerry Ritz
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board. (Handout)
Ed Fast
Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway. (CP)
Lynne Yelich
Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification. (Handout)
Gary Goodyear
Minister of State for Science and Technology and for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario. (Handout)
"Woodworth Says Opponents of M312 Must Give Up Single-Minded Preoccupation with Abortion"
That's the headline about Motion 312 that should have been applied to every commentary.
The word "abortion" ...
"Woodworth Says Opponents of M312 Must Give Up Single-Minded Preoccupation with Abortion"
That's the headline about Motion 312 that should have been applied to every commentary.
The word "abortion" ...
If all you anti-choice Canadians want to declare the fetus a separate and distinct human being from the mother. Will women be allowed to sue the fetus for trespassing and have it forcibly removed.
Will women be able to take out restraining orders on these tricky little fetal trespassers.
If you don't want an abortion, don't get one.
Can you please let the rest of us continue with the 21st century,
there are infinitely more important things to contend with right now isn't there?
adam_denault: If all you anti-choice Canadians want to declare the fetus
M-312 called for a study on when human life begins. Surely any open-minded rational Canadian can understand that unborn children are both human and alive. Only those blinded by extremist feminist fundamentalist ideology would argue otherwise.
M-408 reads: "That the House condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination." Will extremist feminist fundamentalists demands that their MPs vote against that too?
Al_Hiebert: M-312 called for a study on when human life begins.
The bill WAS about abortion. To suggest otherwise is an insult to all those who so rightly and properly opposed such a thinly veiled attempt at social regression.
Frnkndad: The bill WAS about abortion. To suggest otherwise is an
It is intellectually dishonest in the extreme to posit that M-312 had nothing to do with abortion.
Let us assume for arguments sake that the motion passed and went into committee, and let us further assume that the committee came to the conclusion that yes, the fœtus is a separate & distinct human being from the mother. It would then logically follow that the state would be forced to draft legislation that balanced the rights of the fœtus against those of the mother, and that would inescapably lead to some form of restriction upon abortion at some point during gestation. Thereby elevating the rights of the fœtus above that of the mother.
You might have gotten much further in your pursuit of this matter had you been forthright in what you were seeking rather than skulking about the back door like some thief in the night. Not only is this position of yours disingenuous sir, but it displays a clear lack of courage in your convictions.
OdysseusCA: To Stephen Woodworth MP It is intellectually dishonest in the
"Our preoccupation with abortion"? Oh, please. From the moment this disingenuous legislative swill was tabled, its supporters (what few there were) screamed long & loud that it would be the end of abortion rights and the beginning of "personhood rights" for 2-celled blastocysts. Mr. Woodworth should take his plaintive, pious bleating about "preoccupations with abortion" to them.
JJHall: "Our preoccupation with abortion"? Oh, please. From the moment this
?
No, he wishes to re-evaluate, with modern technology, when life begins. Why is human status granted to those only outside the womb, like there's a magical "humanity" line in the cervix.
willowsprite: ? No, he wishes to re-evaluate, with modern technology, when
there is a magical "humanity" line in the cervix, the birth canal, you go through it and take your first breath independent of your mothers amniotic fluid. I can't wait to get another chance to try to vote these clowns out.
adam_denault: there is a magical "humanity" line in the cervix, the
Lots of great rebuttals to this self-serving post by the self-important Stephen Woodworth! I would add that this debate fails to recognize that our abortion laws are already very balanced. Roe vs. Wade gets so much publicity, that I think many Canadians are apt to confuse US abortion laws with ours. In Canada, one can obtain an abortion, no questions asked, during the first trimester. After that, obtaining one gets more difficult. In the third and last trimester, it is only available when the pregnancy poses a grave health risk to the mother. Although the law is different in the US, where women can obtain an abortion up to the day before birth, even there the main reason women seek abortions after the first trimester is overwhelmingly due to health issues for the mother.
One other thing that never comes up is history. Woodworth, in his willy-headed way, tries to paint objection to his motion as a desire to remain in the past. But the past is replete with back-alley abortions and infanticide!
If Woodworth is sincere in his desire to decrease the number of abortions in Canada, a far more effective motion would be to require better sex education in the school and another would be to make all forms of contraceptions free for the asking! As for protecting women from men who coerce them to have abortions, perhaps we should be addressing the patriarchy here, not imposing more of it.
Carlyn_Craig: Lots of great rebuttals to this self-serving post by the
So we'll make bank robbing easier for thieves. And keep abortion legal so they don't do it in a back alley. Both are still wrong. People are still dying whether they are killed in a back alley or in a facility.
willowsprite: So we'll make bank robbing easier for thieves. And keep
You are entitled to your righteous opinion, but comparing abortion to bank robbery is immature and disingenuous. It's a sound bite, not a reasoned argument for or against.
I live in the 21st Century, and see the world as it really is. If you really want to lower the number of abortions, then promote better sex education and free birth control. Making abortion illegal either forces women to have unwanted children (who I'm sure you won't be taking care of), or forces them to a "criminal" act. And what of the woman whose life is threatened by her pregnancy - no compassion for her, eh?
Women sought out abortions before it was legal, and they will still seek them out if it is made illegal again. The big difference is that they will not be safe.
Also, do a bit of reading. Learn about human society beyond your small frame of reference. There are references to abortion techniques going back to ancient times, although exposure (a form of infanticide) was the more popular method of controlling one's family size throughout much of history. Read Sarah Hrdy's "Mother Nature: Natural Selection and the Female of the Species," for an excellent discussion of these issues.
Carlyn_Craig: You are entitled to your righteous opinion, but comparing abortion
This is true in practice, but not in theory. Canada has no official laws on abortion other than "You must be a doctor to perform one". In practice, later-term abortions become more difficult to get simply because few doctors are willing to perform one unless it is medically necessary.
ABarlow: This is true in practice, but not in theory. Canada
I stand corrected, however, it is still true that most abortions are carried out in the first trimester and third trimester abortions are very rare.
I also note that in terms of stats by province, Alberta, that bastion of conservatism in Canada, carried out 13,084 abortions in 2010, as opposed to 28,765 in Ontario. That's nearly half as many abortions for a province with less than a third of the population of Ontario: Alberta had approximately 3,725,000 people to Ontario's approximate 13,373,000. Curious, isn't it, that the least liberal province has the most abortions? Why is that?
Carlyn_Craig: I stand corrected, however, it is still true that most
Mr. Woodworth:
When you and your fellow politicians legislate subsidized breakfasts and lunches in schools for those kids whose parents cannot afford it.
When you revise the current fostering system so that kids that have "graduated out" of it have support in terms of life management skills and secondary education (be it in trades or university or any sort of job training).
When you initiate legislation to change the Family Court system so that court cases involving children who are in care of physical or emotional abusers are not allowed to be delayed, thereby prolonging the time those children can be abused, or forcing them to run away and fend for themselves on the street.
When your party advocates for less jails and more rehabilitation centres for drug addicts, young offenders, petty criminals, and those convicted only of possession of marijuana.
When your party starts taking environmental concerns seriously rather than publically branding your own research scientists and Environmental advocacy groups as terrorists.
When your Government doesn't stop funding for an Arts festival that features one play that spoke out against your Government leader (out of over 100).
In short, when you and your party at all levels of government start respecting the dignity of life and the rights of the already born human beings that are citizens of Canada:
Only then will I believe that you brought up this bill solely because you care about the legal status and dignity of human beings.
Felis_Dee: Mr. Woodworth: When you and your fellow politicians legislate subsidized
i'm glad that, as a backbencher you had an opportunity to bring forth a motion. too bad that out of all the motions to bring up, you choose a subject that less than a quarter of your country agree with you on, and if you couldn't pass it with a stacked conservative deck, i'd say you better find another issue to rally behind.
mr_Lyons: i'm glad that, as a backbencher you had an opportunity
Yep! In one little Pacific island country, the (Chief) Commissioner of Police, ordered all police to begin their day very day with a (Christian) prayer, until he was ordered to cease and desist by the PM!
Among many, there is an irresistible urge to enforce religious observance on everyone. I know a few Canadian Co's use entertainment as an "in" to religion with their employees. Hey, how many (young) people today are going to refuse a good time, some employment security, and a pay cheque?
EQ8Rhomes: Yep! In one little Pacific island country, the (Chief) Commissioner
I have known women who use abortion as a form of birth control. I know a mother and father who chose to take an imperfect fetus to full term and deal with the issues. I keep hearing of abortions as a means of gender selection. I was for reopening the debate, largely because the imperfect fetus turned into a bright and engaging child who doesn't care that she has extra difficulties to overcome. But I have changed my mind totally based on your explanation. Women should make this decision, not the state. The last thing we need is more laws. This is a difficult and emotional choice. One politicians are, at least in light of this column, not equipped to make.
Surfinby: I have known women who use abortion as a form
Kudos to Mr. Woodworth for fighting the good fight, and I applaud his faith in the Canadian people. I have a hard time sharing this faith, but as an MP he is doing the right thing.
The next fight is with Mr. Warawa and motion 408, calling for an end to discrimination against women occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination (feticide). The irony is that feminists were the loudest voices speaking out against motion 312, but what are they going to say now? Since they didn't want to open 312, does that mean that they are ok with feticide?
daberger: Kudos to Mr. Woodworth for fighting the good fight, and
Spare me the rhetoric you right wing reactionary busybody. Your intention is to infuse yourself into other peoples' private affairs. What is it with you cons anyway. Are your own lives so uninteresting or miserable, you need to mess with everyone else. MYOB Steve.
14Kestrel: Spare me the rhetoric you right wing reactionary busybody. Your
Will women be able to take out restraining orders on these tricky little fetal trespassers.
If you don't want an abortion, don't get one.
Can you please let the rest of us continue with the 21st century,
there are infinitely more important things to contend with right now isn't there?
M-408 reads: "That the House condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination." Will extremist feminist fundamentalists demands that their MPs vote against that too?
It is intellectually dishonest in the extreme to posit that M-312 had nothing to do with abortion.
Let us assume for arguments sake that the motion passed and went into committee, and let us further assume that the committee came to the conclusion that yes, the fœtus is a separate & distinct human being from the mother. It would then logically follow that the state would be forced to draft legislation that balanced the rights of the fœtus against those of the mother, and that would inescapably lead to some form of restriction upon abortion at some point during gestation. Thereby elevating the rights of the fœtus above that of the mother.
You might have gotten much further in your pursuit of this matter had you been forthright in what you were seeking rather than skulking about the back door like some thief in the night. Not only is this position of yours disingenuous sir, but it displays a clear lack of courage in your convictions.
No, he wishes to re-evaluate, with modern technology, when life begins. Why is human status granted to those only outside the womb, like there's a magical "humanity" line in the cervix.
One other thing that never comes up is history. Woodworth, in his willy-headed way, tries to paint objection to his motion as a desire to remain in the past. But the past is replete with back-alley abortions and infanticide!
If Woodworth is sincere in his desire to decrease the number of abortions in Canada, a far more effective motion would be to require better sex education in the school and another would be to make all forms of contraceptions free for the asking! As for protecting women from men who coerce them to have abortions, perhaps we should be addressing the patriarchy here, not imposing more of it.
I live in the 21st Century, and see the world as it really is. If you really want to lower the number of abortions, then promote better sex education and free birth control. Making abortion illegal either forces women to have unwanted children (who I'm sure you won't be taking care of), or forces them to a "criminal" act. And what of the woman whose life is threatened by her pregnancy - no compassion for her, eh?
Women sought out abortions before it was legal, and they will still seek them out if it is made illegal again. The big difference is that they will not be safe.
Also, do a bit of reading. Learn about human society beyond your small frame of reference. There are references to abortion techniques going back to ancient times, although exposure (a form of infanticide) was the more popular method of controlling one's family size throughout much of history. Read Sarah Hrdy's "Mother Nature: Natural Selection and the Female of the Species," for an excellent discussion of these issues.
I also note that in terms of stats by province, Alberta, that bastion of conservatism in Canada, carried out 13,084 abortions in 2010, as opposed to 28,765 in Ontario. That's nearly half as many abortions for a province with less than a third of the population of Ontario: Alberta had approximately 3,725,000 people to Ontario's approximate 13,373,000. Curious, isn't it, that the least liberal province has the most abortions? Why is that?
Women and their doctors are the best people to make their healthcare decisions....NOT YOU!
When you and your fellow politicians legislate subsidized breakfasts and lunches in schools for those kids whose parents cannot afford it.
When you revise the current fostering system so that kids that have "graduated out" of it have support in terms of life management skills and secondary education (be it in trades or university or any sort of job training).
When you initiate legislation to change the Family Court system so that court cases involving children who are in care of physical or emotional abusers are not allowed to be delayed, thereby prolonging the time those children can be abused, or forcing them to run away and fend for themselves on the street.
When your party advocates for less jails and more rehabilitation centres for drug addicts, young offenders, petty criminals, and those convicted only of possession of marijuana.
When your party starts taking environmental concerns seriously rather than publically branding your own research scientists and Environmental advocacy groups as terrorists.
When your Government doesn't stop funding for an Arts festival that features one play that spoke out against your Government leader (out of over 100).
In short, when you and your party at all levels of government start respecting the dignity of life and the rights of the already born human beings that are citizens of Canada:
Only then will I believe that you brought up this bill solely because you care about the legal status and dignity of human beings.
Among many, there is an irresistible urge to enforce religious observance on everyone. I know a few Canadian Co's use entertainment as an "in" to religion with their employees. Hey, how many (young) people today are going to refuse a good time, some employment security, and a pay cheque?
The next fight is with Mr. Warawa and motion 408, calling for an end to discrimination against women occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination (feticide). The irony is that feminists were the loudest voices speaking out against motion 312, but what are they going to say now? Since they didn't want to open 312, does that mean that they are ok with feticide?