Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

B.C. court upholds abortion bubble-zone law

TERRI THEODORE

The Canadian Press

Latest comment posted at 2:55 PM EST 04/09/08

Unanimous decision states law in place to protect vulnerable women, justifying limiting protesters' rights ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Jesse Winger from Calgary SW, Canada writes: A wise decision. Pro-lifers can be dangerous people when they get riled up.
  2. H M from Canada writes: Personal views on abortion aside, women definitely need to be access the clinics, even if just for information, without fear of assault or people physically blocking the way.

    Having known somebody who was considering abortion, I know how agonized she was, without having to face a barricade of people condemning her for her potential choice.
  3. Kim Philby from Ottawa, Canada writes: Jesse: I hope you appreciate the tragic-comic irony of your statement that 'pro-lifers can be dangerous people.'

    And, in an attempt to head off the inevitable comments: noone is 'pro-death,' or 'anti-life,' or 'pro-abortion.' Some (most?) are 'pro-choice.' There's a difference.
  4. Ruth Walker from Edmonton, Canada writes: If this goes higher, I expect the Supreme Court to concur.
    There is a difference between expression and harassment/intimidation.
    The BC court was wise to recognize the vulnerable state of those who face such potentially difficult choices.
    No doubt social conservatives will try to claim that this is judicial activism - sigh!
  5. aging oldtool from Canada writes: A sensible and humane ruling that is required to deal with the psychos who want to impose their views on everyone else even if it means killing them to do it.

    If you don't like abortions then lobby your politician, but leave innocent women alone you thugish brutes.
  6. Scary Fundamentalist from Vancouver, Canada writes: H M:

    I agree with you that there shouldn't be a barrage of harassment when approaching an abortion clinic.

    That being said, I don't believe the information or counseling available at the abortion clinics is impartial. The side effects of abortion, both physical and emotional, are downplayed. They are also told to think of the fetus as an extension of the woman's body and not as a person, something that should be a part of one's belief system and not promoted (or discouraged) by the state health system.

    Interestingly enough, upon more balanced counseling, the rate of abortions has been found to decrease dramatically.

    As long as the state takes a one-sided approach and continues to shut out opposing beliefs and views as they have, there will always be considerable protest from the pro-life movement.
  7. Kim Philby from Ottawa, Canada writes: Scary Fundamentalist: it's not a 'pro-life' movement; it's an 'anti-choice' movement.
  8. Scary Fundamentalist from Vancouver, Canada writes: Kim:

    Semantics aside, please elevate your level of discussion.

    Or would it make you happy if I stooped to your level and replied 'Kim - it's not a 'pro-choice' movement, it's an 'anti-life' movement'

    Care to comment on what I actually said?
  9. Zando Lee from Vancouver, Canada writes: ....a very good ruling....
  10. nick oliver from halifax, ns, Canada writes: Scary Fundamentalist from Vancouver, Canada writes:I don't believe the information or counseling available at the abortion clinics is impartial. The side effects of abortion, both physical and emotional, are downplayed. They are also told to think of the fetus as an extension of the woman's body and not as a person, something that should be a part of one's belief system and not promoted (or discouraged) by the state health system.

    you have obviously never set foot inside a clinic. women are presented with, and reminded of, all of the options including keeping the baby and adoption. the risks of becoming infertile are discussed along with the risks of depression and other complications. no one working in a clinic would ever suggest that getting an abortion is without risks to the person getting one. no one in the pro-choice movement wants anyone to do anything but follow their own convictions. if a woman changes her mind about having an abortion after a consultation, there is no judgement coming from those working in the clinic about it. they believe it's the pregnant woman who should choose what happens -and no one else. they aren't advocating abortion, they are advocating the ability to access the right -or not- if they choose to do so. that's hardly a one-sided approach. what is one-sided is saying that denial to access is the more moral of policy choices before the bc gov't. the state isn't shutting out opposing beliefs (hello? have you checked out ottawa lately?), but they aren't going to present a medical procedure as a moral choice because it isn't their place to do so.

    abortion isn't illegal. harassment is. one of the functions of gov't is enforce the law, so until abortion is made illegal, harassment of of women seeking access to the clinics is the only law being broken they can enforce.
  11. Kevin Carriere from Edmonton, Canada writes: Kim Philby from Ottawa, Canada writes: Jesse: I hope you appreciate the tragic-comic irony of your statement that 'pro-lifers can be dangerous people.'

    ...You beat me too it.

    I am exceedingly happy that instead of being aborted, I was adopted.

    In my opinion, pregnancy should not be a social stigma. There are options other than abortion when considering caring for the fetus (unborn child) in an 'unwanted' pregnancy. it is all too unfortunate for expectant women, that the 'pro-abortion' lobby enforces that her fetus is truly 'unwanted'.

    Government, and I mean ANY government, present or future, that considers itself 'civil' should have enough compassion for the unborn to agressively promote alternatives to abortion in the case of alleged 'unwanted' pregnancies.

    However in order best promote abortion alternatives we as a society must first destigmatise pregnancy for all age groups and social classes. We have much work ahead of us.

    Expectant women, there are THOUSANDS of 'could be' parents willing to raise your child once born.

    Your pregnancy is valid and should not reduce you to the status of 'second class' citizen. You have other choices. Stand up for YOUR true right of choice.

    I hope your choice is life, I am happy my mother's choice was.

    Dr. rer. nat. Kevin L. Carriere

    Edmonton, Alberta

    ps. vote wisely.
  12. John Stanton from Somewhere near New Liskeard, Canada writes: 'pro-lifers can be dangerous people.'

    That's an understatement.

    Anyone who disagrees, think of this: When was the last time pro-choicers used bombs or rifles to try to make someone see things their way?
  13. Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: Good. The prolife nutters tend to get out of hand. I remember in the mid-1980s when it wasn't uncommon to see them chaining themselves to the abortion clinic doors and locking the chains up. Firemen had to cut them away with the Jaws of Life just so police could haul their worthless a$$es off. However, I don't have any more respect for the pro-choice extremists who insist on no abortion law whatsoever. We're the only country that does not seriously restrict late term abortions, and that is a tragedy. It needs to change, but it won't of course. Canada's polity is simply too easily offended by the wiff of any measure that isn't suitably 'progressive'.
  14. suss man from Canada writes:

    Oh oh Harper, Day and the rest of Canada's 'new' government are not going to like this. All their supports are going to be getting rabid now.
  15. Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: John Stanton, they don't need bombs or rifles. They have surgical tools. Before someone calls me a pro-lifer, just let me say I am PRO ABORTION. I believe in safe, inexpensive and unrestrictive access to abortions in the EARLY STAGES OF PREGNANCY. After the first trimester, it should be severely restricted if not outright banned. Of course in Canada we don't do that. It's not 'progressive'.
  16. Michael Manning from Mississauga, Canada writes: Kevin Carriere from Edmonton, Canada writes: 'Expectant women, there are THOUSANDS of 'could be' parents willing to raise your child once born. '

    Which explains why it's so easy to place foster children in safe, stable, loving environments . . .
  17. Kirk . from Ajax, Canada writes: This is a sound ruling. It balance the right to protest with the right to be unaccosted while recieving legal medical procedures. Only the most rabid, dangerous protesters would have a problem with this. The quiet religious types will probably stand with their signs outside the 'bubble' like they have done before. It's a free country after all.
  18. Nathan Cool from Vancouver, Canada writes: Anti-abortionists have plenty of options in expressing their opinion. Intimidation and harassment is no longer one of them.
  19. Kevin Carriere from Canada writes: Michael Manning from Mississauga, Canada writes: Kevin Carriere from Edmonton, Canada writes: 'Expectant women, there are THOUSANDS of 'could be' parents willing to raise your child once born. '

    Which explains why it's so easy to place foster children in safe, stable, loving environments . . .

    I say your comment is downright cynical. Would you not agree?

    Yes, Foster Care is another alternative, however, newly-born children are quite easily placed into a rigorously screened 'loving' adoptive family.

    For more information, contact your local children's aid society.

    Dr. rer. nat. Kevin Carriere
    Edmonton, Alberta
  20. Scary Fundamentalist from Vancouver, Canada writes: Michael Manning:

    Do you know the first thing about foster arrangements? Adoption and fostering are two completely different things. How would you like to parent a kid who could be ripped away from you any given day and returned to the birth parents, or transferred somewhere else? How could you form the emotional bond with that kid that is required for a proper parent-child relationship? An adopted kid is legally your own kid and nobody can take them away. Big difference.

    Fact is, there are thousands who are waiting to adopt. I'm one of them. In my adoption agency there are four times as many waiting parents who apply each year than there are babies given up for adoption. The average waiting period is 2-3 years, assuming that you haven't given up by then. On top of it all, a domestic adoption costs in excess of $15,000, which disqualifies many who would like to adopt.

    We would like to adopt at least four kids. But the limit for domestic adoption is only two. So, after we adopt the second we will have to adopt from overseas which is even more expensive.

    Given all the hurdles, there are still an abundance of couples waiting to adopt. So Kevin Carriere's statement is quite true.
  21. Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: Adoption is only really an option for 'normal' children. Very few potential adopting parents want to take on a child who has fetal alcohol syndrome or some other form of developmental disability.
  22. F H from Canada writes: Just goes to prove that some anti-choice folks are complete hypocrites that state they're protecting lives (aka a collection of cells that could not exist outside of the womb), while at the same time endangering or even murdering pregnant women and the doctors who help them.

    That being said, I'm against late term abortions unless the mother is in danger, in which case the living human being must be put ahead of a potential living human being.
  23. Kevin Carriere from Canada writes: Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: Adoption is only really an option for 'normal' children. Very few potential adopting parents want to take on a child who has fetal alcohol syndrome or some other form of developmental disability.

    I can empathise with your comment, but I have no sympathy for it.

    As evidenced by the comments of Scary Fundamentalist above, There is still a 4/1 ratio of 'could be' parents to EACH 'unwanted' child born, including and not limited to the developmentally handicapped.

    A civil society values the life of its citizens, and these potential parents exemplify the maximum of civil compassion.

    Dr. Kevin L. Carriere,
    Edmonton, Alberta.
  24. tom johnson from Toronto, Canada writes: FINALLY A RATIONAL DECISION FROM A CANADIAN COURT: NOW IF WE CAN GET RID OF HARPER AND HIS GANG OF CRONIES, WE CAN MOVE ON.
  25. Scary Fundamentalist from Vancouver, Canada writes: Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: 'Adoption is only really an option for 'normal' children. Very few potential adopting parents want to take on a child who has fetal alcohol syndrome or some other form of developmental disability.'

    It is an agonizing experience for a prospective adoptive parent to decide on what disabilities they are willing to accept the responsibility of. Most adoptive parents are not going through the procedure to get a designer baby; they feel that they have an ability and a duty to raise and parent children no matter what the challenges.

    Those few who are classified by the state as 'unadoptable' are often older children who have been through the damaging foster care system for years as their birth parents refuse to let go but are unable to take care of them. It is only in the extreme circumstances that children with disabilities who are given up for adoption at birth are not adopted.
  26. Scary Fundamentalist from Vancouver, Canada writes: Thanks, Kevin Carriere, for your personal insight. I hope my adopted daughter (15 months old) grows up with the same perspective as you. She, like yourself, was dangerously close to being aborted.
  27. Fit to be tied from Canada writes: If they would have sat out in front of the clinic none of this would have happened but when you get in someone's face and impede their movement you have crossed the line. Since they chose to do this they ruined it for all peaceful demonstrators.

    Why should a few bad apples spoil it for the rest? I guess the police don't have the resources to have officers assigned to these clinics to make sure the person whose right to walk into the clinic unimpeded isn't being denied by protestors. The only workable solution was the bubble zone.
  28. Jenny any Dots from Canada writes: I used to live close to a women's clinic in Vancouver. The protesters were there all the time blocking the sidewalk and carrying big banners. They were mostly old men. I used to take coat hangers and hang them on the banners. Those old guys wouldn't even touch the hangers, they would shake them off. When I would ask what they would do to help the mothers after the child was born they had no answer.

    If we agree to support women and children fully after the birth of a child maybe we could think slightly differently about a woman's right to choose. If we educated everyone about the benefits of using a prophylactic barrier to aid in the prevention of disease and unwanted pregnancy then maybe we could look at a woman's options differently. Unfortunately, as a society, we don't do those things.

    Women have the right to their own choices and no one should impede them...I especially loved the anti-choice guy in the article who said the bubble zone was 'too big'...give me a break...
  29. Kevin Carriere from Canada writes: Thank you Scary Fundamentalist, for your choice to adopt.

    Thanks for disseminating valid information.

    Thanks for your participation in a civil society.

    Society needs more compassionate people like you.

    I cannot begin to advise you on how/if to inform your daughter of your decision to adopt her. I can only say that should you chose to inform her, she is likely to have many questions; some you cannot answer, but all you can support in her pursuit.

    Be aware that she will likely always have appreciation for your decision to adopt, and her birth parent(s)'s decision to give your daughter the privilege of life.

    Thanks for your support of the choice for life.

    Kevin.
  30. Jenny any Dots from Canada writes: Interesting arguments re: adoption. The missing factor here is the potential mother and her decision to bare a child or not. She is the sole determiner of what she will do with her own body. I am not unsympathetic to Scary but it isn't your choice...
  31. Jenny any Dots from Canada writes: Kevin, I am curious as to your perception of women who are experiencing unwanted pregnancies, or those of us who are compassionate but feel women have the right to choice. (not to mention potential fathers who want the woman to abort or, conversely, to keep the baby to have control over her. Remember Chantal Daigle, I do!!!) Does this make us less 'civil' in this society than Scary?
  32. Orville Fenderknob from Canada writes:

    We live in very sad times.

    .
  33. Kevin Carriere from Canada writes: Jenny any Dots from Canada writes:

    If we agree to support women and children fully after the birth of a child maybe we could think slightly differently about a woman's right to choose. If we educated everyone about the benefits of using a prophylactic barrier to aid in the prevention of disease and unwanted pregnancy then maybe we could look at a woman's options differently. Unfortunately, as a society, we don't do those things.

    ----

    My only comment is that society begins with not with 's', but with 'I', or in your case 'you'. If you truly feel that there is a misdirection in the current society, take the cause up and actively promote change. There are many ways to promote change, or in this case, the promotion of womens' rights (and by extension, the rights of the pre-born).

    Those old men have chosen a method to 'promote' change. Some have been ineffective, some (rightfully so) charge with assault. This only means that their method is out of step with the expectations of a 'civil' society. Nevertheless, they too are in some way protesting for the betterment of womens' rights... even though they may not know it.

    I challenge YOU to do more than hang subversive symbols on their protest banners. I challenge you to promote women's equality, to promote healthy attitudes towards sex and sexuality. I challenge you to free yourself from any stigmatic perception you may hold towards the unborn and their relationship with their would be mother.

    I challenge you to CONSIDER your future vote in the name of equality. Do not vote in the name of fear.

    I could challenge you to more... but I figure you have quite a plate of challenge to feast on...

    Oh, one more thing.

    I challenge you to inform your neighbour of my challenge.

    Kevin
  34. Scary Fundamentalist from Vancouver, Canada writes: Jenny any Dots from Canada writes: 'Interesting arguments re: adoption. The missing factor here is the potential mother and her decision to bare a child or not. She is the sole determiner of what she will do with her own body. I am not unsympathetic to Scary but it isn't your choice...'

    This discussion is relevant since those who are aborted are often referred to as 'unwanted' by society. The numbers of prospective adoptive parents prove that assumption completely false.

    It's just one aspect of the justification of abortion that I find completely false.

    Whether a 8.5 month developed fetus is still a part of its mother's body is another debate.

    By the way, I assume your spelling of 'bare' (sic) was not a Freudian slip wrt infanticide.
  35. Scary Fundamentalist from Vancouver, Canada writes: Jenny any Dots from Canada writes: ...not to mention potential fathers who want the woman to abort or, conversely, to keep the baby to have control over her...

    Jenny: Not sure if I am reading the tone of your post wrong, but you do seem to be portraying a generalization of women as victims and men as perpetrators. Keep in mind that both sexes are equal - equally capable of good and evil.
  36. Jenny any Dots from Canada writes: Kevin and Scary, well, Kevin, you assume I don't do anything and that is your choice. Those 'old men' had their protest, and at the time, so did I. I would ask you, as you have revealed you are a Dr. and I am assuming a physician, how do you deal with someone who wants to terminate when you so obviously disagree. Is it ethical for you?

    Scary, the point you miss is it is not your right to decide, nor anyone else's, what a woman can do with her own body. Can you explain or justify your position on denying a woman her own choices? And just to clarify...I would say, for myself, if a fetus is viable outside of the uterus then termination is wrong...8.5 months is just your way of inflamming the dialogue...
  37. Kevin Carriere from Canada writes: Jenny any Dots from Canada writes: Kevin, I am curious as to your perception of women who are experiencing unwanted pregnancies, or those of us who are compassionate but feel women have the right to choice. (not to mention potential fathers who want the woman to abort or, conversely, to keep the baby to have control over her. Remember Chantal Daigle, I do!!!) Does this make us less 'civil' in this society than Scary?

    Jenny,

    Read again my comments, carefully.

    You will in no way see that I wish to 'limit' a woman's right to choice. I have only disseminated information in support of alternatives to abortion. A cause that I believe is no less right and just than the status quo.

    As a person given the 'privilidge' of life, I have had much time to contemplate the decision of my birth mother, her contemporaries and those that have chosen not to be burdened by an 'unwanted' pregnancy.

    I understand, your concern for my opinion. Though it does not deter me from my conviction in support for the promotion of the privilege of life for those 'entities' which have yet no ability to decide their fate.

    Perhaps I will go out on a limb and in support of the opinion that the characters and people you mention are in fact LESS civil than Scary. However this can and will be argued.

    As an aside, please contemplate you opinion of execution. Contemplate it in consideration of societies expectation of a woman's right to choice and the yet unprotected rights of the fetus to full and unencumbered development.

    I do think that we agree society has far to go yet in support of womens' and fetal rights... let it be up to us (if you so wish to join me) in their absolute promotion.

    Kevin
  38. Jenny any Dots from Canada writes: P.S. Kevin, I always vote pro-actively. It would be wrong to vote against something. Negativity is not my wont.

    Scary, those are just examples of the extremes...just as you are examining the extremes of the pro/anti choice movement. But nice try at side stepping the issues...I just won't bite that one...
  39. mynalee johnstone from saltspring, Canada writes: I really wish that Pro Lifers would spend their time helping the already born.
  40. Patrick F from Canada writes: I personally am Pro-Choice but if I knew someone considering an abortion I'd advise them against it if possible but in the end it is their body and their choice. Once they've made it its not up to me, or any band of thugs occupying a sidewalk to attempt to dissuade them.
  41. Kevin Carriere from Canada writes: mynalee johnstone from saltspring, Canada writes: I really wish that Pro Lifers would spend their time helping the already born.

    We do.

    Care to elaborate as to Why you made your comment?

    Kevin
  42. Scary Fundamentalist from Vancouver, Canada writes: Jenny:

    The central issue is the belief that a person has unfettered freedom to do what they want without regard for those dependent on them. I think this is where we will have to agree to disagree.

    I believe it wrong for a person (man or woman) to abandon his/her spouse and/or children when they are dependent on him/her for their livelihood. By extension, I also believe it wrong for a person (man or woman) to abandon an unborn child when it is dependent on them for its livelihood.
  43. Jenny any Dots from Canada writes: Kevin, the choice to choose an abortion is not easy. I have been getting ready for work and contemplating this issue. I do see your point and as, it seems, an adoptee I can sympathize with your perspective. As I get older I do find it harder to imagine doing or having done it myself. But, I must always support a woman's right to her own body. For me this is the basis of my belief. There is a saying about equality...until a woman has a right to her own reproductive freedom there will be no democracy...as hard a decision the choice may be it seems to me to be up to the individual to make her own choice regardless of the political backlash it may incur.

    Oh, I could see a utopian society where we embrace and support everyone but we do not live there now and with the likes of the anti-choice movement we will never get there (typically, anti-choice are vociferous christians who oppose sex education and enlightenment). We don't seem, as a society to really value human rights at all...if we did we would educate all children on all aspects of their health...sexual and spiritual. We continue to epitomize the 'sexy' girls, we allow our children to perpetuate sexuality at a very early age and then we deride and denigrate them for it...wow...
  44. Cognitively Cogitative from Urbia, Canada writes: I'm glad reason has prevailed. Those who lost are mistaking the right to harass vulnerable people with the right to free speech.
  45. Doubting Thomas from Canada writes: Good. Keep these whack jobs and nutters out of our faces. Send them back to the 1800's where they belong - Talibangicals, all of them. Terrorist zealots.
  46. Jeremy K from Canada writes: im always amused by the gross hypocrisy of those who would kill to save the unborn

    do you not see the irony?
  47. Darren X3 from Toronto, Canada writes: Kevin Carriere: 'I am exceedingly happy that instead of being aborted, I was adopted.'

    This is an exceedingly vacuous statement. (and I speak as someone who was also adopted when other choices were no doubt available).

    No fetus before, say, five months, has ever been 'unhappy' about being aborted, any more than a sperm cell has been 'unhappy' about being blocked by a condom from pursuing its destiny of fertilizing an egg.

    You could use the same argument against birth control or even abstience: 'I am exceedingly happy that I was conceived, rather than being prevented from doing so by a condom'.
  48. Darren X3 from Toronto, Canada writes: And by the way, this is a sound decision. Women who are interested in counselling re: abortion (from any perspective you want... pro-choice, pro-life, whatever) have a plethora of choices as near as their phone book. If you want to counsel a woman against abortion, those who want to hear your message know where to find you.

    When they are 20m from the abortion clinic doors... they've made up their mind. Get out of their face.
  49. Darren X3 from Toronto, Canada writes: BTW, Carl Sagan wrote the definitive essay on this subject years ago:

    http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml
  50. Jenny any Dots from Canada writes: Darren, I like your style...J
  51. Sniggly Wiggly from Canada writes: Is there anyone here who actually, truly, believes that at any time before labour begins, a woman should be allowed to abort? Like, say, the day before her due date, or even ON her due date if the baby is late? Is the baby really going to change so much in 12 hours that now it's OK to kill it* but killing *him/her a few hours later would be murder? Yes, this is an obvious extreme, but where do we draw the line? We know it has to be drawn (I'm pro-choice), but it is a very difficult question.

    SW
  52. Kevin Carriere from Canada writes: Darren X3 from Toronto, Canada writes: Kevin Carriere: 'I am exceedingly happy that instead of being aborted, I was adopted.'

    This is an exceedingly vacuous statement. (and I speak as someone who was also adopted when other choices were no doubt available).

    No fetus before, say, five months, has ever been 'unhappy' about being aborted, any more than a sperm cell has been 'unhappy' about being blocked by a condom from pursuing its destiny of fertilizing an egg.

    You could use the same argument against birth control or even abstience: 'I am exceedingly happy that I was conceived, rather than being prevented from doing so by a condom'.

    ---
    Darren X3,

    Your comment escapes me.

    As a function of my birth, am I not allowed the right to happiness, and to its expression? Am I also not allowed the choice of where I direct its expression?

    Do not confuse my comment with any blanket statement for ALL adoptees. You are free to express your own sense of futility/self-hate at your leisure.

    I choose to express gratitude for the decisions that have lead to my present existence.

    Kevin
  53. Orest Zarowsky from Canada writes: The truly despicable aspect of the anti-abortion crew is that they are also, by and large: anti-birth control, anti-sex education, anti-welfare, anti-women's programmes and anti-daycare, among other things.

    Why aren't these people willing to put their money where their mouths are? If you oppose abortion, that's fine. But be prepared to deal with, and pay for, the consequences of your position. If you aren't willing to pay the costs of your position, STFU and slither back under your rock.

    I myself don't think that abortion is necessarily a good thing, but legal, medically administered abortions are a much better idea than illegal, back alley abortions with their attendant costs and deaths. History shows that women have been having abortions for a very long time. And when abortions were unavailable, infanticide was quite common.

    Mind you, any woman stupid enough to use abortion as a primary form of birth control should be sterilized. And there are a number of them out there.

    Where this debate gets really entertaining is that Canada is the only country that has no abortion law at all.

    Where are our MPs, and why won't they do their job? The RRW loves to whine about this issue - and the Supreme Court - but they don't seem to be interested in pressing Parliament to address the issue.

    I have no doubt that our MPs could reach an appropriate compromise on the issue. If they had any wit. But none of them have the integrity, or spine, to deal with the issue honourably. Nor are they willing to address the consequences - and costs - of limiting abortion in a reasonable manner.
  54. Richard Elan from Canada writes: It is absolutely incredible that the so-called 'pro-choice' advocates can completely and continuously ignore the fundamental question of whether or not a life is being taken when they make their 'choice'. Can any 'pro-choice' supporter out there please answer the simple basic question of when life begins? It's easy to ridicule the stance taken by many pro-life supporters that life begins at conception, but is it not ludicrous to suggest that a baby born at 10 am was not a human life at 9:50 am....because that is exactly what the current state of Canadian law has been reduced to by the 'pro-choice' movement. Pro-choice means you support the current laws which do not grant the most basic of human rights...the right to life....to an unborn child at any time during the 9 month gestation period. Canada is the ONLY country in the world where this situation exists. Yet the people trying to change this, the people who believe that an unborn baby's right to life outweighs a mother's inconvenenience, are the ones being painted as the villains. What a world. In some cultures, it is predominantly female fetuses that are aborted. It is interesting to note that feminsists have objected to this and have advocated restrictions on this practise. Would it be alright to picket those clinics? It would appear that there can be limitations on a woman's 'right to choose', as long as it satisfies the social agenda of the 'pro-choice' supporters.
  55. Stan L from Canada writes: I am glad this was upheld and glad that the limits are set as they are. No woman should have to run the gauntlet of people actively seeking to shame them, judge them, harm them, ridicule them for something that is a perfectly legal choice. Do I support abortion? no I do not, but it is not my place to make moral judgements against or for someone who is competently making a perfectly legal choice for themselves. It is not my place to force my beliefs on them, it is not my place to make them feel guilty either, it IS my place to accept people, respect their choices, and love them regardless.

    The fact is that when a women enters an abortion clinic, they are told about their choices, given options, and given sound medical and psychological advice about the before and after consequences of their choice in a guilt free environment (those of you claiming otherwise are woefully misinformed or puposefully trying to confuse others).....to assume that they cannot make this choice without an extra splash of information is to assume that women are idiots, too emotional, too unequipped to make a competant choice.....why do we do this to the fairer sex?
  56. Luke R from Toronto, Canada writes: Scary Fundamentalist from Vancouver, Canada writes: H M:

    I agree with you that there shouldn't be a barrage of harassment when approaching an abortion clinic.

    That being said, I don't believe the information or counseling available at the abortion clinics is impartial.
    ******
    what kind of a stupid comment is that. i can be as impartial as i want to be and you still have no right to educate me about it if i don't want you too. where do you get off thinking you have a right to force any type of knowledge on anyone. if those women wanted 'sidewalk counselling' they would have sought it out themselves. they already made up their minds and they want an abortion...get over it. you have no right to talk to anyone if they don't want you to talk to them.
  57. Richard Elan from Canada writes: Orest Zarowsky comments are typical of a pro-abortionist. He doesn't 'think abortion is a good thing', but he'll support it anyway. Once again Mr. Zarowsky, as a true pro-abortionist, ignores the fundamental question...is a fetus a human life at ANY time during the 9 month gestation period? If the answer is yes (and how can it possibly be otherwise) then how can you justify the killing of a human life on the basis that 'they would do it in the back alleys anyway'. And what has cost got to do with it if you are talking about a life? Maybe Mr Zarowsky reduces everything to cost, but most people wouldn't. I would give Mr Zarowsky the same advice he is giving to others... he should STFU and slither back under HIS rock.
  58. Darren X3 from Toronto, Canada writes: Kevin: 'I choose to express gratitude for the decisions that have lead to my present existence.'

    And I share your gratitude. HOWEVER, we CANNOT infer any moral position vis-a-vis abortion from this gratitude (which you appear to be attempting to do).

    If you are attempting to make the argument 'I am glad I was born, ergo abortion is wrong', you might just as easily have said 'I'm glad my parents chose to have sex rather than abstaining, therefore abstinence is wrong'.
  59. Darren X3 from Toronto, Canada writes: Again, I strongly encourage those who rightly ask 'so... where do we draw the line' to refer to Carl Sagan's essay on the subject.
    (link above). It uses what is known about fetal brain development to make a cogent case that abortion before four months cannot be possibly viewed as 'killing a person'.... what makes you a person is your brain (which is why we unplug brain-dead people)... before four months development the fetus has no brain that would be sufficient to merit the title. Since before four months is when most abortions take place.... no problem.

    I've never been comfortable with the 'five minutes before birth, it's an abortion, five minutes after birth, it's murder' argument... but I am stanchly pro-choice nonetheless.
  60. Kevin Carriere from Canada writes: Darren X3 from Toronto, Canada writes: Kevin: 'I choose to express gratitude for the decisions that have lead to my present existence.'

    And I share your gratitude. HOWEVER, we CANNOT infer any moral position vis-a-vis abortion from this gratitude (which you appear to be attempting to do).

    If you are attempting to make the argument 'I am glad I was born, ergo abortion is wrong', you might just as easily have said 'I'm glad my parents chose to have sex rather than abstaining, therefore abstinence is wrong'.

    Your comment:
    'This is an exceedingly vacuous statement. (and I speak as someone who was also adopted when other choices were no doubt available).' borders on ad hominem... luckily for you, it isn't.

    My comments in no way infer 'any moral position' to substantiate your claim that I attempt to make the argument '...abortion is worng'.

    My statement 'I am exceedingly happy that instead of being aborted, I was adopted.' is made in support for my 'mother's'decision to give me the privilege of life, and that her decision may be an example to others seeking information regarding their situation.

    Other than being a recovering cathaholic, I am not at all religious, It would be difficult for me to reconcile a hierarchical religious faith with my chosen occupation. Thus I profess no Moral position regarding Abortion.

    That said, my stance on life is that it begins at conception. ergo, Abortion is in fact unethical in that it paramount to execution of the inocent.

    Take what you will from my comment, be it vacuous or informed. It is mine, and I presently have a right to it.

    I choose to lobby for the rights of the yet unborn in this sphere, not on the picket line, because, the commentary better debatable and relatively unencumbered. It would seem that you do to.

    I would however refrain from and direct personal offense as it is grounds for liable.

    Kevin Carriere
  61. Steven In_Quebec from Ste.Catherine, Qc, Canada writes: Darren X3 from Toronto, Canada writes: Kevin: 'I choose to express gratitude for the decisions that have lead to my present existence.'

    And I share your gratitude. HOWEVER, we CANNOT infer any moral position vis-a-vis abortion from this gratitude (which you appear to be attempting to do).

    Darren: Way to go. You, Jenny and I obviously see through 'Dr' Kenny's backdoor attempt to push Pro-Life diatribe through this post. Kudos to you for decimating it so eloquently.
  62. Kim Morton from Canada writes: Sometime the court does get it right. Funny thing about anti abortionists is tha t they are not pro life, only fro pregnency. It is OK to them to murder a doctor who performs abortions, but it is not ok for a women to have an unwanted parisite removed from here body.
  63. Iain's Opinion from Canada writes: It is not my place, nor yours, to make the descision for the women seeking abortions or counseling about the options. Nor is it my place to judge them for their choice. I do believe that there is a quote one could use something along the lines of
    JUDGE NOT LEST YEE BE JUDGED AND BE FOUND TO BE LACKING.
  64. Darren X3 from Toronto, Canada writes: Kevin: 'My statement 'I am exceedingly happy that instead of being aborted, I was adopted.' is made in support for my 'mother's'decision to give me the privilege of life, and that her decision may be an example to others seeking information regarding their situation.'

    Again, Kevin, you are missing the point. What about the decision to abstain from birth control? Should those who owe their existence to their mother's decision to do so use their case as an example to suggest to others that they also avoid birth control?
    What about the decision to abstain from becoming pregnant as many times as is humanly possible? Should the 14th child use their own case as an example of why all mothers should also have 14 children?

    As for threats of libel, on an internet forum? Surely you are joking.
  65. Colin C from Canada writes: Sorry Kim Morton, the vast majority of us who are pro-life vehemently oppose the taking of life to support our views. And many of us would also support this ruling - a woman who is going through the decision of whether to abort or not needs compassion and support, not condemnation and intimidation.
  66. Darren X3 from Toronto, Canada writes: And thanks to those who appreciated my posts :)
  67. Kevin Carriere from Canada writes: Darren X3 form Toronto Writes: Again, Kevin, you are missing the point. What about the decision to abstain from birth control? Should those who owe their existence to their mother's decision to do so use their case as an example to suggest to others that they also avoid birth control?
    What about the decision to abstain from becoming pregnant as many times as is humanly possible? Should the 14th child use their own case as an example of why all mothers should also have 14 children?

    ---
    Your eloquent point is, and has been well taken.

    That said, it does not and cannot invalidate my statement 'I am exceedingly happy that instead of being aborted, I was adopted.', or any assertions it makes. The statement, being vacuous or informed, is valid and rightful in and of itself. Full Stop.

    What irks me is that you cease only on this comment, taken out of context from the rest of my comment. In reviewing the rest of my coment you will see that, in support of womens rights, I promote the expansion of social responsibility to the pregnant woman and her unborn fetus. On that point both Jenny and I agree.

    Be very aware that the assertions it makes are much different than the assertions that YOU interpret from the comment.

    'As for threats of libel, on an internet forum? Surely you are joking.'

    No. I make not threat of liable. I only state 'I would however refrain from and direct personal offense as it is grounds for liable.' You have not yet made a direct and personal offense... but, in my opinion, you have come close. In fact, your contemporary 'Steven' with his comment ...'Dr. Kenny...has just about crossed the line.

    Dr. rerum naturalium Kevin L. Carriere.
    Edmonton, AB
  68. Steven In_Quebec from Ste.Catherine, Qc, Canada writes: @ Dr. Kevin: Sticks and stones may hurt my bones but words and your vain threats to quell my freedom of expression will never hurt me.

    Read the fine print:

    'unsubstantiated allegations; comments that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact is not publicly known; or comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements'
  69. Richard Elan from Richmond Hill, Canada writes: Kim Morton says : 'It is OK to them to murder a doctor who performs abortions, but it is not ok for a women to have an unwanted parisite removed from here body. ' From what planet does this person come from?? To suggest that all pro-lifers think it's OK to murder doctor speaks volumes about the intelligence level of Ms/Mr Morton, but when he/she describes an unborn baby as a 'parasite', it makes me second guess my pro-life beliefs. Maybe in some cases an abortion wouldn't have been a bad idea...I'll bet Mrs. Morton is second-guessing her decision to carry this parasite for nine months.
  70. Bella Forte from Vancouver, Canada writes: I am pro-life, but I agree with this ruling. There are much better ways to show your support for the movement that by hypocritically causing physical harm to those that support the opposing viewpoint. Not only does it do nothing to further the cause, it harms it. About abortion itself, I believe that it's the greatest crime of our times. Some make the argument 'it's the woman's body, therefore her right to choose'. BUT that only holds water if, in fact, the life she is choosing to exterminate in fact does not have any rights (of course, currently it doesn't), which can only make sense if we say that that life is not human. Otherwise it surely is protected under our constitution just as much as you and I. SO, is it or is it not human? It seems even among pro-lifers nobody has a definitive answer. There are those that argue 'It's only human if it's viable outside of the womb, i.e. at 4 months gestation (or whatever)'. BUT what if medical science advanced to a point where a fetus became viable at 3 months gestation? 2 months? 1 month? Is morality so flexible? I don't think so. A fetus from the moment of conception is either human or it is not. Make your choice. About this whole argument re: 'choice' in a democacy. Well, one of the hallmarks of a civil society is that it protects its citizens (hence you can't murder, steal, etc. - you don't have that 'choice'). Therefore if a fetus is indeed human, then the same protection we give to living, walking humans also apply to them.
  71. Bella Forte from Vancouver, Canada writes: I posted this in a previous thread related to the topic but I'll repost for those who missed it:

    Legal facts about 'personhood':

    “In the eyes of the law…the slave is not a person.”
    -Virginia Supreme Court decision, 1858

    “An Indian is not a person within the meaning of the Constitution.”
    -George Canfield - American Law Review, 1881

    “The statutory word ‘person’ did not in these circumstances include women.”
    -British Voting Rights case, 1909

    “The Reichsgericht itself refused to recognize Jews…as ‘persons’ in the legal sense.”
    -German Supreme Court decision, 1936

    “The law of Canada does not recognize the unborn child as a legal person possessing rights.”
    -Canadian Supreme Court - Winnipeg Child and Family Services case, 1997

    Our society is not as enlightened as it thinks it is.
  72. Colin C from Canada writes: Bella, your argument fails to mention another question usually avoided by the pro-choice advocates - whether indeed an unborn child is inherently part of a woman's body. The argument 'I have a right to do what I want with my body' is for the most part true, but just assumes that the unborn child is inherently her body. But can that be argued scientifically? In no other area of science do we consider two genetically distinct organisms equivalent, and the unborn child (or call it fetus if you wish) is genetically distinct. 'But it's nurtured by my body...' True, but a real parisite is nurtured by ones body but is not your body. 'But it's genetically mine' Well, it's only half genetically yours - it's also half genetically your male partner's, so if it's your body, it's also his, so he should have some say in the matter. The assumption that an unborn child is just a part of a woman's body to be discarded at will is unfounded and frankly unjustifiable on that basis alone. At least Kevin has raised some thought provoking points, but Jenny and Dots has certainly used this as her prime debating point.
  73. Colin C from Canada writes: Oh, and by the way, the statement that society has no right to tell me what to do with my body is also an unfounded statement in itself. Society often steps in and stops people from doing harm to their own bodies, so even the argument in the first place is vacuous, to use a favored term of our friend Kevin.
  74. Mother Trucker from Canada writes: Kevin & Scary: I appreciate your comments and would like to present an opinion from another angle. I am the grandmother of a beautiful, sweet (I'd brag on, but every grandmother has bragging rights), 5 year-old granddaughter. My son and daughter-in-law brought her home from the hospital the day after she was born. I, and the rest of the family, will be forever grateful to her birth-mom for loving her so much she was willing to give her to a family who would be able to raise her and give her the advantages the birth-mom couldn't. The birth-mom admitted she would have had to raise this wonderful child as a single parent on welfare, where my son and daughter-in-law were established, and able to provide well for their new daughter. They went through private adoption, I'm sure most know how that works. The biological mother (or parents, if that is the case) has the choice of picking the parents she would like for her child, and the prospective adoptive parents have the choice of accepting or not (a very shortened version of the process). It took a long time (4 years), and there were disappointments along the way, but it turned out as it was meant to. Thank you, birth-mom from small-town Alberta. You know who you are, and I love you for your sacrifice which made our family whole.
  75. Kevin Carriere from Canada writes: Colin C from Canada writes: Oh, and by the way, the statement that society has no right to tell me what to do with my body is also an unfounded statement in itself. Society often steps in and stops people from doing harm to their own bodies, so even the argument in the first place is vacuous, to use a favored term of our friend Kevin.

    Please, I can take no credit for forwarding the term 'vacuous' in this stream.

    I'd like to thank Darren X3 for forwarding the term.

    'This is an exceedingly vacuous statement. '

    Thanks Darren,

    Kevin
  76. Colin C from Canada writes: Oops, Sorry Kevin for my misplaced attribution. Source now correctly attributed to Darren.
  77. Colin C from Canada writes: Yes, it was Darren's points that I was referring to as thought provoking from the pro-choice side - not that your points weren't also thought provoking, Kevin. Cheers.
  78. Colin C from Canada writes: Darren makes the comparison between unplugging a brain dead person and considering brain activity as a determining factor in when personhood or humanity begins. However, there are crucial differences between these two situations. In the first, a person is on the way to death and we generally are artificially keeping them alive, so we allow them to die as the natural course of the end of life. In the second, a person is on the way from the womb to life outside the womb and we are doing nothing special to keep him or her alive. If we terminate this little person, we are terminating the natural and incredible course of life from which every last person on this earth has been gifted with - life itself. So while your argument, Darren, is thought provoking, sorry, it's, ummm, vacuous.
  79. Ann Ig Norant from I want global warming and grow bananas in my backyard, Canada writes: Good decision
  80. matthew veenman from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Thank-you Vancouver for making the right choice and respecting a woman's right to choose. To the good reverend and to the rest of the population who choose to not respect the rights of women -

    Not the church and not the state Women will control their fate.
  81. Steven In_Quebec from Ste.Catherine, Qc, Canada writes: Well speaking of vacuous Colin C from Canada writes ...In the second, a 'person' is 'on the way' from the womb to life... A person really??? 'on the way' Just how much a fetus needs to be 'on the way' to be person oh enlightened one. Don't answer that allow me. Here's the reference for you all: From the AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS, people who take care of newborns ie a person. Report: Perinatal Care at the Threshold of Viability 'The survival rate for infants born from 22 to 25 weeks of gestation increases with each additional week of gestation.1,2 However, the incidence of moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability in surviving children assessed at the age of 18 to 30 months is high (approximately 30%–50%) ' So is prior to 22 weeks ok for an abortion Mr and Mrs Prolife? Would Red neck conservatives take care of these 'persons' if they are at risk of low cognitive abilities, with possible lung, heart and kidney problems hmmmm? Let's ask Dr Kevin? So was denkst Du, Kevin? Und beziehungweise, wie war Heidelberg? Es ist so schoen im Winter, nicht war? Also from the report: 'COUNSELING REGARDING POTENTIAL FETAL OUTCOMES' FETAL??? Fetal??? Can't be, they are people! Yes Rick McNaulty, I'm a scumbag too. That is so deep of you. Really it touches me. And back to Dr. Kenny: 'As a function of my birth, am I not allowed the right to happiness, and to its expression? Am I also not allowed the choice of where I direct its expression?' Did you write Birth? You meant conception right? Because that's what you're claiming your right to live at conception ergo a right to happiness.
  82. Rick Tremblay from Ottawa, Canada writes: If pro-lifers are as they say, against abortion, then why are they against the morning-after pill.
    No conception has taken place, and if made widely available to all woman(define age as you see fit), abortion may, become less and less of an issue.
    I myself is pro-choice, but also believe that no abortion should take place after the first trimester, unless their are complication(s) to either the woman, or the fetus.
    Saying that the fetus is a person at conception, to me is an issue of religion, and not a bases for the courts.
    But it does behoove the MP's to place restrictions after the first trimester, but then you would be likely to considered Un-Canadian for trying that.
  83. john doe from toronto, Canada writes: Not all Canadian pro-lifers are terrorists. But in Canada, most terrorists are pro-life activists.
  84. Colin C from Canada writes: Steven, the point of the comparison is that when we disconnect a person from life support, we are allowing nature to take its course. When we terminate a pregnancy, we are stopping nature in its course and kiling a living being. Putting aside when we can consider an unborn child a person, it certainly has all the potential of personhood. It also has life in every sense of the word - cells multiplying, growing, autonomous movement from very early on, incredible development - a life far more advanced than many of the things that we know as life and wonder at. Compare that to any simple organism. Yes, an unborn child is dependent on its mother for the sustenance of life, but it is living by any definition of the word. And the argument t