It ain't over until it's over

The Star, in an editorial yesterday, said the abortion debate is over:

Unlike in the American election this year, abortion did not make it onto the political agenda in the Canadian campaign. For good reason. In the two decades since our Supreme Court struck down our anti-abortion laws, a consensus has emerged here that abortion ought to be a matter between a woman and her doctor, not a political football.

But a group of MPs seeks to change the status quo. By forming a "pro-life caucus," they hope to put the issue back on the national political agenda, apparently by focusing on late-term abortions. "We need to have a starting point of debating whether or not abortion should be legal right up until the moment of birth," said the caucus chair, Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge (Winnipeg South), in an interview with The Canadian Press.

Bruinooge, heretofore best known for launching an Internet game called "The Stone,'' said the pro-life caucus includes members of all parties. He would not produce a list of names. But Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada says that a majority of the Conservative MPs are "publicly anti-choice." And many Liberals MPs are known to be in the same camp.

Despite their numbers, the pro-life caucus is unlikely to have much of an impact.

A similar group – calling itself the "family values caucus" – was formed at Queen's Park in the late 1990s but failed abysmally to get its issues on the agenda of the day. That's because then premier Mike Harris wanted nothing to do with them.

Similarly, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said before that he was uninterested in reopening the abortion issue. Now, with an economic crisis on his hands, Harper has even more reason to avoid such a distraction.

The abortion debate is over in Canada. Move on.

But the abortion debate is NOT over, not from where I sit.

2008 started with the 20th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision which gave Canadian women the right to control their lives. The pro-forced pregnancy types noisily protested. When Dr. Henry Morgentaler was awarded the Order of Canada, the pro-forced pregnancy types angrily protested. When Bill C-484, the so-called Unborn Victims of Violence Act, was terminated, the pro-forced pregnancy types protested yet again.

This year we even saw a major Maclean's feature demanding that the abortion debate be reopened. (The piece, by the way, misrepresented Bill C-484 as protection for the ''fetus.'' That despite the fact that the bill never contained the word and only referred to the ''unborn child.'')

Not a day goes by when some pro-forced pregnancy activist doesn't complain to me, via email or some other medium.

Every week it seems as if the National Post runs another op-ed calling for the end of women's reproductive rights -- and always makes it seem as if far more than a teeny tiny fraction of abortions are late term, usually performed to save the mother's life.

So the debate is on ... and on ... and on ...

My work in 2009 is cut out for me.

Comments

[Robert McClelland]

Instead of constantly playing defense we should push for legislation that guarantees--in the Charter or Rights and Freedoms--a woman's right to reproductive choice. Until it's enshrined in the Charter this battle will never end.

[the regina mom]

And, let's not forget about the inequality of access to the medical procedure. Some women in rural and remote areas have to travel hundreds of miles to a facility where there may be a doctor willing to perform it. Some hospitals refuse to provide the service. There's a debate going on all right, and it's going on in many areas.

[Beijing York]

I knew the fight was on when the pro-forced pregnancy activists swarmed that misguided CBC Facebook exercise to identify the most pressing issues for [young] Canadians.

[Keith]

"....the Supreme Court decision which gave Canadian women the right to control their lives."

So in the name of equality do you or do you not support men being able to "control their lives" by "aborting" any parental responsiblity for a pregancy that they may have gotten into that the men choose to not be a part of? IE, Go ahead and have the baby if you want, support the child yourself, but as the father I am excersizing my right to choose and I choose to not be responsible in any way shape or form for the child. I choose to control my life you can control yours.

Or is it in fact that you favor the women's right to control a man's life by making him responsible for the child the women CHOOSES to have?

[Antonia Zerbisias]

Keith,

That's a separate issue.

In any case, I fully support a man's right to use a condom or to get a vasectomy.

Responsibility begins before the first cocktail.

Happy New Year.

[Keith]

A women has the right to wear a condom or have hysterectomy, so she doesn't need the right to have an abortion either.

A women's right to control her life should not entail the controlling of another person's life. Where is the equal right to control one's life?

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

Esteemed and Beautiful Moderator,

It isn't REALLY a separate issue.

"My work in 2009 is cut out for me." (there's Gaza too)

especially when you let slip stuff like

"Responsibility begins before the first cocktail."

Some of us could have a ball quoting that one out of context.

Have a Wonderful New Year, and keep writing!

[Keith]

In Antonia's column of Oct. 15, 2008 she speaks of a custodial parent as a parisite.

"Her two sons, whose custody she lost to her parasitic ex Kevin Federline, are another matter."

Seems she only agrees with me when it is a women who is being controled by a man, yet when the vast majority of women control men she conciders it "a separate issue".

Antonia's feminism seems to be about superiority not equality.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

"Antonia's feminism seems to be about superiority not equality."

But, Keith, the Esteemed and Beautfiul Moderator IS a superior being.
One area where she goes a bit wrong is projecting this superiority onto too many other people.

In a previous posting I compared one of her colleagues to Shelob.
The Lord of the Rings character the E&BD comes closest to is Galadriel.

(NOT Arwen, the distortion of whose role in the movie was a sort of . . . feminist affront).

[johnnykap]

Robert McClelland says: "we should push for legislation that guarantees--in the Charter or Rights and Freedoms--a woman's right to reproductive choice."

Robert, since, as a man, you have no say over whether your wife or gf gets an abortion, you should not have any say in pushing for legislation guaranteeing access to abortion. Let the women handle that. Apparently, that's how they want it. Now, mind your own business like a good little man.

[Keith]

Johnnykap, But as Antonia points out a man's reproductive rights end at the point of intercourse. Therefore in order for women to have equal rights to men, a women's reproductive rights should end at that same point. If she didn't want a child she should have had a hysterectomy or used protection. There are men paying child support to their pedophile rapists.

[...pat.]

It's amusing to watch a trio of retro men argue women's reproductive rights.
It's more important for you to be clever and top each other than deal with the real issues.

[MensRightsNow]

Pat...it is that level of arrogance that has men perplexed at the whole reproductive rights of women. Why is the child suddenly 50% his when she WANTS to have it? Suddenly! Miraculously! IT'S A PARTNERSHIP!!!

On the other hand, a female can abort a couple's child unilaterally. Her body, her choice. "I made a mistake, I'll abort my mistake".

The man on the other hand, can't make a mistake or he pays for it for a minimum 18 years??? This is where the "reproduction debate" is BS.

Again, this is Animal Farm equality.

Women would certainly be better at practicing birth control, and probably less likely to open their legs if they knew they'd have to raise the child on their own financially. After all, "I'm not ready to be a FATHER at this point in my life." See how selfish that sounds...now change 'father' to 'mother'. Feminists want equality with minimal or zero responsibility.

The fact is the fetus is 50% the man's genetically and our laws do not reflect this on a sociological level. (see family courts)
In a feminist world, it is 0% the man's unless she decides to have it, then, by default, he has to support a child he may never have wanted. The transparent feminist response is..."well, you should have wore a condom."

Females, with multiple forms of birth control, can absolve themselves of an unwanted pregnancy on a whim OR she can have the child with financial support from a man who may believe he made a 'mistake'. This isn't equality, it's having your cake and eating it too.

I don't know how feminists can actually promote this with a straight face, it is that ludicrous.

My wallet, my choice.

[sooey]

Meanwhile, the anti-choice crowd has upped the ante to "State Rape". It's interesting how fascist some people are when it's not THEIR freedom at stake, eh?

[Keith]

The only real issue is that women should have equal reproductive rights as men. Protection, abstinence or deactivate the equipment. Anything else would be greater reproductive rights blame and simple. If men are to be held morally accountable for the results of intercourse then so should women.

[Antonia]

Keith, here is the part you don't seem to get. Women are already held morally, financially and physically accountable/responsible/hostage. That's why they want the right to choose. How would you even it up?
If you don't want a baby, then don't go sowing any seeds. Take responsibility.
It's the lest you can do since you aren't the one getting pregnant, going into labour, and physically raising a child.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

"If you don't want a baby, then don't go sowing any seeds. "

or maybe make a post-menopausal woman happy?

[Keith]

By the way, I am pro choice. Pro Choice for EVERYONE not just women!!!

[Keith]

Antonia here's the part you won't accept. Women have the same reproductive right to not engage in acts which make them pregnant. If you expect men to take responsibity for thier actions than you should also expect women to be responsible for thier actions and not expect women to have the "do over" right.

[MensRightsNow]

Antonia: I'm not sure you get it....

Why do you have such a sad opinion of the concept of pregnancy?

Morally? Terminating a pregnancy is obviously a tough choice, but it is still immoral and not in the biblical sense.

Financially? 90% of women marry up or at least seek out partners that can financially support their offspring. The law forces men to pay for offspring they may not want. The government will bail you out if the father (wallet) disappears.

Physically? Womens' bodies are designed for birth, they same way a man's body is designed to do construction or work in a coal mine...all the difficult jobs women avoid. Imagine if men aborted their responsibilities of doing all of society's heavy lifting? Scorched Earth!!!

Accountable? Women have the freedom to abort, with no accountability. Men are accountable financially! Men have no choice if a "mistake" is made. Of course, it only takes ONE to tango, if he doesn't wear a condom, he isn't ALLOWED to opt out like a female can. Where is the equity?????

Responsible? For what?, raisng the child...as a single mom? We know where that goes...jail, drugs and dysfunction...look at Jane and Finch, your classic matriarchy. It takes a mom AND a dad to raise a well adjusted child. A mom contributes no more than the father. Yet mothers are given sole custody of children 85% of the time in court.

Hostage? To what or to whom? The child?, use birth control then, or demand the man use it...or BOTH use it! Or are you hostage to the pregnancy? What a dysfunctional view of procreation.

You tell MEN to take responsibility, placing all of the ONUS on the man to prevent the pregnancy (where a condom dude!). Ludicrous. If it took two to make the child (mistake) BOTH should have equal methods of absolving themselves of the "burden" of raising a child if they're not ready. That is REAL equity, not the feminist version.

[johnnykap]

"Women are already held morally, financially and physically accountable/responsible/hostage. "

So women who get pregnant are being held hostage, according to the Zerbilicious one. Hmm, where have I heard that before? Oh, yes, why, our new president elect, (who I gleefully cast my first vote as a US citizen against) Barry Obie.

"It's the lest you can do since you aren't the one physically raising a child."

So men don't physically raise children. I guess by that logic, there are no fathers who beat their kids. After all, that's a physical act, and we, by Antonia's very words, don't do anything physically related to a child's upbringing. Thank you for clearing all men of that crime, Antonia. Your feminism has taken you to that level of logic.

Oh, and you spelled "least" wrongly. Ha ha!!!

[hysperia]

What a bunch of juvenile ignorance. Mocking a spelling error in the argument of our esteemed moderator is just silly, silly, silly. But it's to be expected. When you can't marshall an effective argument, go for the spelling mistakes and hope no one notices that it's the only leg you have to stand on.

Paternal rights are, indeed, recognized in the Family Courts ONCE THERE IS A CHILD. Before that, fatherhood has not, in any real sense, begun. On the other hand, women cannot avoid the necessity to deal with a pregnancy, in and of itself. And as long as embryonic and fetal tissue resides in the body of a woman, it is that woman's choice whether or not to continue to host the fetus to birth. As Whoopi Goldberg once said, if men were the ones who got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament. I don't demand sacramental status. I just want the right to control my body.

[HelenG]

As long as abortion is not used as a form of contraception, then it should be allowed, and be the choice of the woman who is pregnant. Not all women can tolerate the birth control pill, and/or IUDs. What else is available to a woman except abstinence? Also, how many men will not use a condom because it interferes with their pleasure and, anyway, feel it is the woman's problem!!

[Keith]

In the US men are held responsible for paying the FULL cost of Prenatal care of the women, so their responsibility does start prior to a birth. Ironically, the willing mother is not held responsible for paying any part of HER prenatal care, hmmm who's the victim here?????

As for other BC options, you can snip or tie those tubes or have all the productive parts removed. Oh, there are condoms for women to wear as well. But you will never hear esteemed moderator advocating that one. Seems to her that wearing a condom is only a man's responsibility and would only limit the women's right to her persult of happiest.

[MensRightsNow]

Hysperia...on the contrary, women CAN avoid the "necessity to deal with a pregnancy".

BEFORE SEX, she has abstinence, the pill, IUD, tubal ligation. DURING, she can demand the male use a condom with spermicide or use the FEMALE condom, or say "NO, please....I don't want to get pregnant". AFTER, she has the morning after pill as well as the ultimate in choice...ABORTION.

FEMALES HAVE FULL CONTROL OF PREGNANCY...100%. therefore a man should be able to opt out of his financial responsibilities if he feels he has made a mistake....just like SHE can! This is real equity!

[Adam]

Hrm.

The way I see it is men don't legally have the same right of choice in the matter of abortion.
However, this is how I lay it out. I may be idealistic, but here goes:

If a girl gets impregnated while drunk/intoxicated obviously the mystery person who got her up the duff isn't worth the risk. Woman 100% choice in the matter.

If a girl gets raped, and gets pregnant, obviously the dude is a criminal and shouldn't have a say in the matter. 100% woman's choice.

If a woman and a man are in a healthy relationship, and she gets pregnant, obviously they'd discuss things. Sure, the woman has all the legal right to make the decision, but if someone you care about gets you pregnant you're probably going to hear that person's opinion and weigh it. Pretty much a 51-49 split in choice, I'd say(50-50 but a tiebreaker going to the woman as she's the vessel).

If a woman and man are in a casual relationship and she gets impregnated by the guy, same as above unless the dude runs off, in which it's 100% her choice.

HOWEVER. There are always situations where people manipulate and take revenge and whatnot. I don't think I could find it in my heart to lock someone up on child-support payments for nearly two decades(unless rape was involved), and I wouldn't fault someone for taking their leave. The child-support system is (at least in the USA, I don't know much about Canada's ... which is funny since I'm from Canada) incredibly flawed and in need of revamping.

Also, MensRightsNow, I spoke of extremist mens' rights groups in a previous post on this blog, and how there are precious few good ones around these days. Whichever one you support is not likely to be one of those few, from what I've read of your posts.

[johnnykap]

MensRightsNow, your post is spot on. The only thing that could improve on your ideas would be the idea that if we have to accept abortion as a "right", then we men should be able to force a woman to have an abortion. That would be equity.

Hysperia, rather than focusing on my pointing out Antonia's errors, why didn't you do as you yourself suggested? Instead, you mocked me for pointing out Antonia's errors. That makes me the better man.

[hysperia]

I'm not sure why I'm having this conversation. Every now and then, I get so pissed off, I just have to say so.

What I mean, of course, is that a woman cannot walk away from a fetus, once she is pregnant, the way a man can - believe me, pursuing men for prenatal care and child support is a helluva burden and it falls on women, when men don't volunteer. I'm not talking about financial responsibilities only - the reality is that women's bodies bear the burden of pregnancy - and the delight, for those who are so inclined. That being the case, ONCE THERE IS A PREGNANCY, no matter whose "fault" it is, women are entitled to decide how to proceed, since the embryo/fetus is housed in the woman's body. See? Simple. Period. Period. No Period. Quit your snivelling.

[MensRightsNow]

Adam...is there something you are refuting?

Wow...hypsperia, you get the quote of the day....."believe me, pursuing men for prenatal care and child support is a helluva burden and it falls on women, when men don't volunteer"

That's why men should have the RIGHT to opt out financially.

"Pursuing men for child support"? Practice birth control if you can't unilaterally support a child...BEFORE, DURING, AFTER....it's in your control 100%.

"Volunteer"??? The man apparently doesn't want or isn't prepared to have a child. A "mistake" was made, why would he volunteer.....because it's the honourable thing to do? You mean like abortion is?? Give him the same RIGHT as a women! You suggest it's ok for the man to be burdened financially for 18 years for a child he never wanted.
Again...Animal Farm equality.

[...pat.]

MensRightsNow... if the man doesn't want or isn't prepared to have a child, he can use contraception, or have a vasectomy (much less risky a procedure than what you're recommending for women: a total hysterectomy!) or refuse to have sex... can't he? Same standard.

[Adam]

I'm just more annoyed that most people fighting for men's rights need to be so vicious. Maybe it's the whole "getting attention drawn to the cause" tactic, but it's not too becoming.

Your attack on single moms, blaming them for the situation in Jane and Finch, is almost hilarious. That's poverty more than single moms. Children do not need a mother and a father. One of either, or both, or two of one gender...any of those combinations will do. It's more about the number of positive role models in the child's life than it is the gender of the parent. The Bible has absolutely nothing to do with this.

And making a comparison between genders saying one is more fit for giving birth while another is more fit for doing construction work(or whatever)....it's just ridiculous. Women's bodies are built to give birth, men's bodies are built to fertilize. That's a more accurate comparison, because you're not comparing two things that are independent of each other.
I'd like to think we're all above petty crap like "Men are better miners than women! Women are better nurses than men!". We all know there are biological differences between each gender, but members of each gender can work the same jobs just was well as their opposite gender. It's an individualistic situation, and to generalize it to a gender squabble is absolutely ludicrous.

In the beginning, feminists fought not only for women's rights, but also fought against things such as racism. They, initially, were interested in equal rights. Somewhere along the lines, some more extreme feminists set up some powerful organizations and started doing some manipulating, and in turn some on the other end of the spectrum started doing some manipulating to pull stuff to their side as well. Somewhere along the lines things got scrambled, and polarized.

I fight for men's rights. I write letters to my MPs, I stick up notices in random areas when certain bills come up that I disagree with, hoping others will pay attention and learn something. I discuss it with others, and while I was in college I promted discussion of it in class. I did much the same for women's rights.
I confronted those who, on community marches against violence, singled out violence against women, just like I confront those who believe women in general can't do certain jobs as well as men(in general).

The only worthwhile people fighting for men's rights that I've met are the ones who realize things are much too polarized, and that this situation is just preventing both sides from improving their stake in life. There are women going around who hate feminists or are ashamed of them. There are men around who are ashamed to be men, or feel inferior because of their gender. It's those people who will shape the future of the country, and who need the support of these rights groups who are too busy squabbling over stereotypes to get down to work.

If you're not looking on both sides of the fence to improve situations, you're not for equal rights, and you're neither a feminist or a mens' rights advocate.

I'm not saying that everything you've typed out is false. I'm just saying it's one dimensional, and you're not exploring productive changes to the system. Now, you might just be here to vent about things, that's perfectly fine, but when the issue of abortion requires two people, and one person has the physical responsibility of carrying the issue after the act, one has to look at solutions other than letting the man just opt out. The abortion system is not perfect, but making it even more imperfect would just be a spiteful maneuver, much like how VAWA is set up in the states.
I've a mind that if you want to foster positive change on an issue, you tackle the roots of said issue. If you want to fix the abortion crisis, you fix what causes it. That, however, does not mean abstinence-only education. :P

[MensRightsNow]

Pat...so can she! It's not the same standard. Great, she has the "right to choose" upon becoming pregnant. Well, so should the man, THAT is the same standard. If she can admit an error in judgement...so can he. Why is it so difficult for women to understand this? You wanted equality didn't you...or is it the Animal Farm version?

You're burdening a man with 18 years of c/s for a child he may not want because he didn't wear a condom, but she can enjoy the sex act all she wants because she has choice. What a joke.

[MensRightsNow]

Hey Adam...I found this line laughable....

"If a girl gets impregnated while drunk/intoxicated obviously the mystery person who got her up the duff isn't worth the risk. Woman 100% choice in the matter."

Reverse the roles, a man is drunk/intoxicated and impregnates a woman.
Does he get 100% choice to not pay c/s for 18 years?? Of course not......feminism, equal rights to get drunk, just none of the responsibility. Another joke!

[hysperia]

"That's why men should have the RIGHT to opt out financially."

You've not provided any argument for this proposition. Because there isn't one. Male and female parents are equally responsible for the support of living children. See? Equality.

[Keith]

Pat, MensRightsNow merely wishs to have Equal rights that women have to terminate parental responsibility that will occur from an unwanted pregnancy. Women have dozens of options to prevent pregnancy while men's options are significantly limited. Where's the gender equality Pat?

[MensRightsNow]

Adam:

Your comment "...one has to look at solutions other than letting the man just opt out. The abortion system is not perfect, but making it even more imperfect would just be a spiteful maneuver..."

Opting out is terrible isn't it? But no worse than abortion right?

A woman aborts a man's offspring...sounds pretty "spiteful" to me!

The fact is women CAN "opt out"! The man can't...and if he does, society and men like YOU label him a "dead beat dad" for a child he never wanted. The flip side of this is labelling a woman as a "baby killer" or maby a "dead beat mom" if she aborts his/her child for a child SHE never wanted. Instead, women are venerated for abortion, almost cheered on by radfems as if it is a duty. Again, Animal Farm equality. You can't win this argument chum until their is real equity.
My solution is harsh, as is abortion, but it is EQUAL!

[Antonia Zerbisias]

Guys,

I have given this issue a lot of thought and will be blogging on it presently.

[MensRightsNow]

hysperia: OK...here ya go then.

1. The minute the woman finds out she is pregnant (1-2 months in), by LAW she must tell the man (if she knows who he is of course). Of course they can talk about it first, hey, they may do the honourable thing and have the child and raise it properly.

2. The man can then immediately report to a lawyer and sign a document that absolves him of being designated inseminator if she chooses to have the child. The biofather also is not named on the birth certificate. (Man has choice) ($10 lawyer fee)

3. If the woman fails to notify biological fertilizer, and goes ahead and has the child, he is by law not the father unless he and she agree that the child will be raised that way. ie. No surprises. (Man protected by LAW)

Simple. But equal! And guess what???...women STILL CAN CHOOSE!!

Now, of course this will horrify women that a man has any level of choice outside of a condom (although the unprotected sex was 50-50 and hot).

If none of the above criteria are met, then the man and women are equally responsible for the child financially.

As well, if the man does not "opt out", then yes women, he is still responsible financially (but only 50-50).